51–60 of 119 posts
Simple algorithm for not wasting your time:
1) By default nothing is valuable or worth your while 2) Aggressively hunt for signals indicating potential worth (ancient pedigree and/or critical acclaim being most valuable) 3) Choose maybe 10% of what survives for actual reading, scan some others and dump the rest
Oh, and let LLMs summarize near-zero information articles like this one.
If I had handwritten this, there would be at least one (likely lots more) errors in writing crossed out mingled in with the text. That there isn't makes me wonder why such a lengthy sample contains seemingly zero handwriting errors. Is that plausible? EDIT: After seeing the comments, I am realizing how little I ever rewrote my own writings, an admitted weakness of mine. It was the blindspot behind which I made my rep…
We also don't know how many sheets went in the bin.
I'm unreasonably distracted by the fact that the illustrations of the tattoos are on the back of the "Subtraction" page. That is consistent for both pages, but inconsistent with how they seem to be ordered within the text. I guess the chapters were re-arranged post-script, with the "Storytellers" chapter inserted between them later?
Text to handwriting in 3..2..
I didn't finish the article, it was slightly difficult to read due to handwriting, and I'm not sure if I would have gotten any more value if I had continued. The mere of act of having written, or prompted to get something written is not intrinsically valuable to me. I have a degree in English literature, and I do not feel confident in my ability to discern AI writing from human anymore. I wasn't sure when I stopped r…
I've been thinking about something similar for a while now. Although my scheme involves cryptographic attestation and typing stuff with hands.
Then, the typist could simply be typing in an AI generated piece of text.
The only solution is to trust the person who handed you the work to accurately tell you the author, and then trust the author to be telling you any attribution.
I personally have earned this trust as people know anything I AI generate will have an Assisted-by: tag on it.
Don't handwrite your next post and definitely don't start writing in your own back to front cryptic code. The reality is people don't always care if a human poured their heart and soul into something. Sometimes they do, but not always. It's like lamented handwritten script when the printing press was invented....
The reverse: sometimes people care if you do. "Caring" and "effort" tend to be good indicators.
But imagine there's some yet-undiscovered that has big implications, and conditions exist for its discovery. Then someone stumbles across it, puts out a hasty tweet, walks off & doesn't look back. Took no effort whatsoever, didn't care much about it. Or maybe some AI does that.
Would that reduce the value of the message? Imho: no.
I'm hoping we'll find ways to separate the gems from mountains of slop they're buried in, that don't require AI-powered tools to wade through that slop & pick the gems. Or establish incentives to not produce all that slop in the 1st place. Not sure if that's doable or how.
But I don't care that much about AI-generated or not (although I'd prefer if stuff were marked as such). Useful, well-written, interesting, exactly what you needed, providing a new angle on a subject, innovative: that's where it's at.
Btw I'm all out of soapboxes. Would a potato crate do, in a pinch? Not gettin' a tattoo!