Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

biblioracle.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 363 posts

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#111

Post by agent281 »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #17

It’s gonna kill the internet as a place to find useful information. Google is already almost unusable for researching any topic that’s even adjacent to anything that can be monetized. Widespread, good-enough, AI-generated, SEO’d “articles” will push it over the edge.

TBH, I'm wondering if we need to start using yahoo style curated content directories again. Content aggregators like reddit, hacker news and lobsters already help filter out a lot of noise, but they focus on recent articles. It would be nice to have a searchable/browsable source for interesting content. It wouldn't contain the full internet, but at least it would have better relevancy.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#113

Post by 33955985 »

onemoresoop wrote: post #84
101008 wrote: post #22

I agree with the article but maybe you are trying to do the wrong thing with ChatGPT. I am not a native English speaker (as many of you already noticed due to my grammar mistakes), so ChatGPT have been very useful to rewrite my texts, fix grammar and maybe "beautify" them a bit. It's has been an invaluable tool in that sense. I feel much more confident now sending emails and writing important messages knowing that th…

How long until all conversations will start looking like they're authored by the same person?

It’s already getting that way with things like grammarly. It makes me sad. I know my colleagues who speak English as an additional language use it and find it helpful, but I much prefer whatever English they speak with be the same when they write. It makes engagement more interesting

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#114

Post by staticman2 »

visarga wrote: post #66
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #17

It’s gonna kill the internet as a place to find useful information. Google is already almost unusable for researching any topic that’s even adjacent to anything that can be monetized. Widespread, good-enough, AI-generated, SEO’d “articles” will push it over the edge.

I don't think so. The internet is already full of shit sites, you can automate spam very easily in any quantity. But chatGPT would actually write useful texts, most of them more useful than the average blog post. Over a few years they might be just as good as the best human articles. Normal people could write a draft version and have chatGPT reword it, that would control the contents of the article. But I expect spam…

"But chatGPT would actually write useful texts, most of them more useful than the average blog post. Over a few years they might be just as good as the best human articles."

If web sites start being written by A.I. and ChatGPT starts getting trained on A.I. output, it's going to start spewing garbage results.

It's only useful if trained on human input, A.I. have no model of the world and no A.I. can function if trained by A.I. written texts.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#115

Post by broast »

Mechanical9 wrote: post #35
heavyset_go wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subtitles got noticably worse now that their generation is often farmed out to AI, especially in translations. Drives me nuts as someone who likes using subtitles.

Huh, that hasn't been my experience, at least not yet. Are you talking about newer movies and shows?

I experienced this with older shows on Amazon

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#116

Post by kristiandupont »

yamtaddle wrote: post #75
kristiandupont wrote: post #26

Throughout my career I've encountered a good number of people who were adding very little (to none or in a few cases, negative) value to their workplace. It used to bother me immensely. On behalf of the employer and for their own sake. I can still find that sentiment if I look for it but today, my perspective is that at least in many cases, it's ok. If the company does well and the employee doesn't hate their life be…

> Yes, ideally everyone should follow their passion and pursue the life of their dreams but some people don't think of work as the source of that. Not only do some people not think of it that way, I doubt enough necessary jobs are the dream jobs of enough people for it to work out. I bet we need the vast majority of people to be working in jobs that aren't any part of any dream of theirs. Besides, maybe their dream w…

>Hell, maybe that dream's just "raise and provide for a family"!

I think we're agreeing there.

>I entirely do not follow how this would be the result of UBI.

I didn't mean to imply that it would. I've just seen people argue that UBI is a solution to the problem of people not having work.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#118

Post by eevilspock »

101008 wrote: post #22

I agree with the article but maybe you are trying to do the wrong thing with ChatGPT. I am not a native English speaker (as many of you already noticed due to my grammar mistakes), so ChatGPT have been very useful to rewrite my texts, fix grammar and maybe "beautify" them a bit. It's has been an invaluable tool in that sense. I feel much more confident now sending emails and writing important messages knowing that th…

You writing skills will stop improving the more you depend on this. It's similar to people losing the ability to mentally map where they are or learn their own city by relying on map and routing apps. While map apps have made navigation so much easier and getting lost much less frequent, it does come at some cost, perhaps acceptable. Is it acceptable to you that your English growth stalls, or if you internalize the ChatGPT changes, that you start to talk like a generic bot, albeit seemingly intelligent bot?

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#119

Post by criddell »

fhd2 wrote: post #79
_petronius wrote: post #14

I'm less worried about stuff like ChatGPT killing things off, but more about just making everything noticeably a bit worse. To take an analogy: bad voice recognition software abounds everywhere, not because it is better than what it replaced in terms of UX, but because it works just enough and allows massive cost-savings on hiring people to do customer service jobs. A world where most marketing copy is written by med…

I have the same worry. Another example: Is furniture nowadays more beautiful and durable than it used to be 100 years ago? Is there more variety now? Not in my book. Same goes for a lot of products that are now produced in the cheapest way possible at scale. Looks very much like a race to the bottom dominated by a few big players to me. Consumers don't seem to care that much.

Your example is true only if you include the criteria that it be affordable. You can probably get any furniture you want made locally or by a highly skilled person far away who is willing to ship to you.

100 years ago, how much did the family dinner table cost? Would you measure it in hours or days of salary? When that family in 1923 went table shopping, they were either going to buy from a company like Sears Roebuck or from a local store and there probably wasn't much variety from either source.

Today, there's lots of cheap stuff available, but there's also lots of high end custom stuff available as well. We have more of everything.

Re: ChatGPT Can't Kill Anything Worth Preserving

#120

Post by stavros »

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #74
_petronius wrote: post #14

I'm less worried about stuff like ChatGPT killing things off, but more about just making everything noticeably a bit worse. To take an analogy: bad voice recognition software abounds everywhere, not because it is better than what it replaced in terms of UX, but because it works just enough and allows massive cost-savings on hiring people to do customer service jobs. A world where most marketing copy is written by med…

Trading quality for price has been happening everywhere for long enough that it is easy to see how unfortunately it will now play out in the arts as well. I mean, not that long ago all clothes you wore were custom made by a tailor, all the music you listened to was played live by musicians, all stories were brought to life in front of you by theatre actors: now all of those while still available are significantly mor…

> now all of those while still available are significantly more expensive and niche than the mechanized (production or reproduction) equivalents.

No, they cost exactly as much as they always had. Before machines, people didn't have wardrobes full of tailor-made clothes. Each person had, give or take one, exactly as many tailor-made clothes as we have today.

Post reply on HN