21–30 of 108 posts
I want to read code by Abrash, Peyton Jones and Karpathy, not Claude's output based on a prompt from a third rater.
If you send me AI generated writing, I will have my AI agent read it and respond to it.
Meanwhile I will use my limited human time to engage with humans and human created content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you could engage with content critically, understanding that in this day and age, you can't be 100% sure of its provenance. Decide whether it's accurate, insightful, worth thinking about and researching further, etc. based on its substance, not who you think produced it and how.
You are asking many readers to do substantial amount of work for something nobody potentially put any effort into. This is the fundamental imbalance. Much like answering unknown numbers, reading articles from new sources has become a time wasting trap. It is absolutely possible to produce an insightful article using AI. But it intakes skill and dedication few people have.
But AI is only the latest continuation of what you're describing. The internet has been full of slop (clickbait, SEO-bait, etc.) and propaganda/disinformation for many years before AI was even a thing. Social media gave every person on the planet with a heartbeat and internet connection a publishing platform over a decade ago.
The only realistic approach for dealing with this is to exercise critical thought when you consume content. And if the massive volume of content we're flooded with is problematic, narrow the sources from which you consume content and consume less of it. Get off social media. Disavow YouTube. Don't doom scroll the news. And so on.
I would never use AI for something where I need my own voice, say a blog post or a personal letter. But I'm not ashamed to say that I used it last week in a chat conversation with a recruiter to turn this: 1. I just said I'm hard of hearing and prefer text. 2. If it's only two minutes you can darn well send email. into this: As I mentioned, I'm hard of hearing and phone calls are difficult for me — I find I miss thin…
I would never use AI for something where I need my own voice, say a blog post or a personal letter. But I'm not ashamed to say that I used it last week in a chat conversation with a recruiter to turn this: 1. I just said I'm hard of hearing and prefer text. 2. If it's only two minutes you can darn well send email. into this: As I mentioned, I'm hard of hearing and phone calls are difficult for me — I find I miss thin…
What was the value-add of AI here? Some modicum of undeserved politeness instead of the curt bullet points you prompted with? Or an intentional “fuck you” by sending something sloppy with AI tells?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you could engage with content critically, understanding that in this day and age, you can't be 100% sure of its provenance. Decide whether it's accurate, insightful, worth thinking about and researching further, etc. based on its substance, not who you think produced it and how.
Ugh that sounds like a lot of work. Are you sure we can't just throw shallow dismissals around and feel smug about it, rather than interacting with the contents of what something is saying?
Isn't that, ironically, exactly the sentiment that motivates people to use AI to produce content?
I think your comment hints at the reality: we're all just increasingly lazy. We want to minimize how much time and effort it takes to produce content, and at the same time we want to minimize how much time and effort it takes to engage with it.
It's a vicious cycle.
I would never use AI for something where I need my own voice, say a blog post or a personal letter. But I'm not ashamed to say that I used it last week in a chat conversation with a recruiter to turn this: 1. I just said I'm hard of hearing and prefer text. 2. If it's only two minutes you can darn well send email. into this: As I mentioned, I'm hard of hearing and phone calls are difficult for me — I find I miss thin…
You need AI to write 2 sentences?
I think the argument is misguided, even if I agree with the principle: it is based in the effort one puts in and how it's similar to a sport. I don't care whether my favorite author sweated for months facing a typewriter, of he effortlessly dictated the final form of the book in one sitting to a secretary while sipping mojitos. I think my issue with AI has more to do with the signal it sends: reading takes effort, pa…
And you can read a car maintenance book. That doesn't mean you can fix your car now.
The author vouched the LLM output using their experience, that's what you get. Unless you are as experienced in their domain, it will take you time to figure out if the output of your LLM prompt is correct or non-sense.
I would never use AI for something where I need my own voice, say a blog post or a personal letter. But I'm not ashamed to say that I used it last week in a chat conversation with a recruiter to turn this: 1. I just said I'm hard of hearing and prefer text. 2. If it's only two minutes you can darn well send email. into this: As I mentioned, I'm hard of hearing and phone calls are difficult for me — I find I miss thin…
What was the value-add of AI here? Some modicum of undeserved politeness instead of the curt bullet points you prompted with? Or an intentional “fuck you” by sending something sloppy with AI tells?