51–60 of 162 posts
If there is something that I would like AI to never touch, it's that. Please stop making the world worse.
I can't imagine LLMs are good judges of good writing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s precisely the problem, though. The internet is already rapidly filling with AI-generated slop, and it takes a non-trivial amount of human brain power to determine whether the how-to article you’re reading is actually a reliable source or whether it was churned out to generate ad revenue. The infinite number of monkeys with typewriters are generating something that sounds enough like Shakespeare that it’s makin…
> AI-generated slop This phrase is kind of interesting to me because it implies that everything AI-generated is "slop". What happens when the AI is generating decent content ? Like, what if we develop AI to the point where the most insightful, funny, or downright useful content is AI-generated? Will we still be calling it, "AI-generated slop"?
In the end the intelligence revolution will be a net benefit to society. In the short term there will be untold suffering.
I can't imagine LLMs are good judges of good writing.
Both ChatGPT and Claud always say something like, "a few grammar corrections are needed but this is excellent!"
So yeah: They're not very good at judging the quality of writing. Even with the "we're trying not to be sycophants anymore" improvements they're still sycophants.
For reference, I mostly use these tools to check my grammar. That's something they're actually quite good at. It wasn't until the first draft was done that I decided to try them out for "whole work evaluation".
I can't imagine LLMs are good judges of good writing.
LLMs are fairly good judges of writing, in fact they're better at evaluating writing than they are at actually writing. I use Gemini as a beta reader, and I've had a lot human beta readers look at the same material, and Gemini consistently gives significantly better than average feedback, though it's stronger at structural and prose evaluation and weaker at emotional and "wishlist" style feedback as you would probabl…
If there is something that I would like AI to never touch, it's that. Please stop making the world worse.
You don't have to participate; ignore AI-generated or AI-assisted content just like you ignore some other thing you don't enjoy that already exists today. But you also don't have to devalue and dismiss the interests of others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you need to watermark it then you don't need to watermark it, though.
What does that even mean
Of course, "art" isn't one fixed standard of quality/features, and you can get "watermark-requiring parity" with average/bad/unmemorable creations but not the top percentile that's actually valued, for example.
If there is something that I would like AI to never touch, it's that. Please stop making the world worse.
Not everyone shares your same world view, and some people do want to apply machine intelligence to their writing process. You don't have to participate; ignore AI-generated or AI-assisted content just like you ignore some other thing you don't enjoy that already exists today. But you also don't have to devalue and dismiss the interests of others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that even mean
"If an artificial label/watermark is the only criteria by which you can differentiate from , by definition there's nothing wrong with the unwanted product itself" Of course, "art" isn't one fixed standard of quality/features, and you can get "watermark-requiring parity" with average/bad/unmemorable creations but not the top percentile that's actually valued, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's fine as long as its output is watermarked so you can avoid it.
If you need to watermark it then you don't need to watermark it, though.
I mean, if you can't tell the difference it doesn't matter right?