91–100 of 119 posts
I'm 100% sure an AI grifter will see this and start creating blogposts with AI-generated images of handwritten text.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope we can get to a point where people will stop clutching their pearls over AI writing, I have no interest in entertaining the theater of proof. The problem, at least for me, is that I don't trust AI . Subtle mistakes, outright hallucinations, or mistakes/omissions that an actual expert of the domain would immediately notice, whatever. And as soon as I encounter anything that even looks like one of the typical…
Do you not have to second guess/verify stuff humans write...? Of all the reasons to dislike AI writing, this is an odd one. > Using AI for anything (including to "polish" grammar and spelling) is mentally taxing for everyone else. I truly believe that in a few years, the obsession with determining whether an AI wrote some text will be classified as a mental disorder. And I say that with all seriousness.
I disagree and think this is an overly extreme take.
I will agree that the trust/correctness thing is kind of silly because humans can be and are often wrong just as much.
But there's a creative element that gets missed with LLM output. Maybe LLM output is OK at work. I honestly don't care if its used for corporate bureaucracy stuff I probably wasn't actually reading it anyway outside of skimming it or putting into an LLM to summarize for me.
But there's a real human creative element that's lost when LLMs are used everywhere for nearly all writing. AI generated art, music, novels, articles, etc. miss the point of human connection. We consume works from each other as a form of social and empathetic connection, very important things that makes human society work, we're naturally social creatures.
Interjecting an LLM into that communication breaks that connection. You are no longer connecting with, or sharing an experience with, the human on the other end of the art. Your connection is with a machine, which is to say, not a connection at all. Its low effort, and its an uncanny valley of imitating a human.
So I don't think its unreasonable at all to be immediately dismissive of anything that is pure LLM output. The actual content itself is only one half of the equation.
I am commenting only to say that I read the reflected-letter text and found that amusing.
The exception is when it's about a niche I care about, e.g. an analysis of opening trends of early world chess champions. I'll read AI on that for an hour.
My sense is that, for most writing, it's fundamentally interpersonal, the information is about the author as much as it is about the world.
Maybe this flood of slop will cause people to care more about the substance of the writing, not the perspectives of the writing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope we can get to a point where people will stop clutching their pearls over AI writing, I have no interest in entertaining the theater of proof. The problem, at least for me, is that I don't trust AI . Subtle mistakes, outright hallucinations, or mistakes/omissions that an actual expert of the domain would immediately notice, whatever. And as soon as I encounter anything that even looks like one of the typical…
Do you not have to second guess/verify stuff humans write...? Of all the reasons to dislike AI writing, this is an odd one. > Using AI for anything (including to "polish" grammar and spelling) is mentally taxing for everyone else. I truly believe that in a few years, the obsession with determining whether an AI wrote some text will be classified as a mental disorder. And I say that with all seriousness.
How to use Monads
When David James was a young child, his mother used to tell him that you could oil vegetables before putting them in the pan. On the ranch in Eastern Kentucky David’s mornings would be spent watering, caring for the cows, and then playing with the dogs. Before he started blah blah blah…
and then he defined a structure called a monad with three properties…
Dude, it’s just a class of this filler text for people whose success criteria is lines of code. At least previously the filler was somewhat skippable. Now it’s interspersed with the useful parts.
But that’s fine: it’s a solved problem by just making a machine extract information. So yes, complaining about the form is passé. I’m going to put it in the ore refiner anyway and the slag goes in the pit. Away to the slag pit with David’s infernal mother.
Edit: also the how this was made was really quite clever :)
My wife's mother tongue is a relatively niche language (I don't want to name it here) that hasn't been a priority for our big tech overlords. It's writing system isn't supported out-of-the-box by any platform, there's no machine translation or OCR, and no LLMs are able to produce it convincingly yet. People sometimes communicate by taking pictures of handwritten notes, or with voice messages. I've long been frustrate…
I love this problem and think it's super important. I've similarly noticed myself using a whiteboard to think critically for a while and then take a picture of the whiteboard as proof of deep thought, even if the next step is AI supplemented (a doc, a video, etc). I've also started noticing people annotating a whole doc "written by humans" to try to convey effort and care. That's fine for some things but do that too…
What do you mean "no way"? We've written long texts for as long as we've been writing as a species.
1. AI exists and is widely used 2. A person only has so much bandwidth. If they put out 10 docs in a day, did they really hand write them all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And also has the hallmarks of "art." I suggest, however, if one were to actually implement this, that the 'excrement' should likely be a food-safe lookalike; maybe chocolate with granola and fruit hunks. Less likely to have trouble with child welfare authorities.
Just a short jump from there to the concept of steganography over the back channel of aggregate child welfare enforcement actions. Typical HN