Planktonne

7 ms·

91.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
The influx of AI into the creative industries should be considered and responded to as an attack, because it is one. It's malicious actors trying to undermine and destructively extract value. It's still painfully obvious when a no
92.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
> AI legal hallucinations are a solved computing problem > those with control of the materials [...] won't share the list with AI companies. These are definitely claims I would make if I was an AI legal company that hadn't s
93.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
Echoing others here, but I think part of it is that a lot of the new tech is designed to make things worse. If I think about new tech, all the examples that immediately spring to mind are negative ones: surveillance cameras, AI-enabled spam
94.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
> He was discussing targeted assassinations. One doesn't "target" an innocent person. Quite apart from anything else, I don't think these statements hang together, and we wouldn't accept them in any other context
95.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
> people's preference for AI generated content over human content when the provenance of the content is blind, which flips on its head when provenance is not blind I don't think this shows what you think it shows. AI output (in
96.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
Has Tesana produced anything worth making yet? So far, all I've seen are janky and shallow, often plagiarised.
97.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
> are you disagreeing with them all Yes. I think an LLM can be useful for trivial or functional tasks, but for expressing complex positions, it's worse than useless. It's absolutely valid to dismiss LLM-generated prose, and peo
98.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
I think you're conflating a couple of different things here. 1. I do disagree with your position in both the prompt and the output; I don't think you're correct. That doesn't mean I don't think you're worth tal
99.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
I would a thousand times rather read your stream of consciousness, even though I disagree with it, than the bland pulp of the LLM output. In every way that matters, it's stronger and communicating far more. I don't agree that it&#
100.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
I believe you believe you did, but the post makes more of a point through its conception than it does through its prose.
101.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
> What was thoughtless about it? You didn't put any meaningful thought into it.
102.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
> Why does it matter who or what wrote a thing The purpose of writing is to communicate. The person communicating is an important part of the message. Consider the sentence "I'm waiting for you at home." It really matters
103.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
You submitted thoughtless pap; of course it didn't get any traction. Why would you think it would?
104.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
There is no coherent position in which the watermarking is a perversion of writing but AI writing as a whole is not a worse one.
105.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
True, but it's clearly and explicitly illegal, which means that the bad thing still happens but there's potential for justice. Technical solutions don't give that.
106.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
> Rated “3” simply because they are not software developers and are just amazed at what Claude has built visually, not technically. Software engineers have adopted this more than any other profession. The breathless articles about it bei
107.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
Is this really 'when genius fails' or actually another 'we're very bad at identifying genius'? It's a word that's thrown around a lot (particularly in tech) that rarely has much to back it up. Often, it se
108.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
It's not poetic or highly expressive; it's business cruft.
109.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
Technical protections don't work on people willing to break the law [1]. [1] https://xkcd.com/538/
110.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
This feels like a social problem, not a technological one, and I am unconvinced that a technological solution will work here. If the worry is that the cop you hand your phone to will take more access than you want, then attempting to limit
111.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
Because as much as you attempt to weasel around it, we're not talking about a spherical hypothetical in a void. We're talking about a specific event, for which no such evidence has been released.
112.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
> it's was clearly a jump in intelligence over previous models. Some people thought this. Some people didn't. Some people thought it was a step backwards. We don't have a solid ground-truth way of estimating this.
113.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
You sound very certain, but so do all the people who disagree with you, and they've got their own private benchmarks. You'll forgive me if I remain unconvinced.
114.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
> we ended up with a lot of people that just can't do the job I don't think this is attributable to the 'learn to code' push; I know many fine engineers who came through boot camps, and many, many poor ones who came i
115.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
A relatively frequent pattern for AI announcements is "it's now really good at X", almost always said by someone who is not an expert in X.
116.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
Why didn't you before?
117.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
The simplest explanation is that 'Fable-level' doesn't mean anything; it's just hype, and there's not much difference in capability. All you need to have Fable-level AI is to announce it, and have enough fans shift
118.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
That argument would be coherent if not for the fact that in this case, the commenter had scrolled past one unsupported set of statements, accepted them, then challenged the other set; that's not reasonable. Accepting something without
119.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
In that case I wouldn't ask for citations from either, because I have direct evidence. But with two competing claims, and no easy way to check ground truth, you absolutely ask for citations from both sides. There's nothing rationa
120.
by Planktonne 2mo ago
> And how is the corollary from the argument you just presented that neither side needs to provide evidence? It's not. I have no idea how you got there. The right thing is to seek evidence for both perspectives. This is ironically n

More ›