391–400 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are ultimately stating that there's something unique about human minds that cannot be replicated by machines. It may be so, or not.
I think I was fairly clear that I’m talking about these machines, not all machines that exist or could exist. If I wasn’t, please read “AI” as “state of the art LLMs as they exist today.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the rare occasion I use LLMs, I always add at least one of the following: - Do not include opinions, just official documentation. - Add all references you have used as a bibliography section at the end. Then I skim the result, and jump to the references it has given. I don't have time for other way.
You have reinvented the search engine. That’s not meant to be glib; Google and friends are pretty trash now.
This means it finds me a single video which is not in a language which I know, or similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really want to know what people specifically mean when they allude to some "higher" level of cognition that humans have above LLM's when it comes to useful outputs. I don't mean the nature of consciousness or internal experience (which is unfalsifiable), I mean the essence of cognitive labor as a tool: writing is about relating concepts, drawing comparisons, aggregating elements of reality into a fictive but believ…
> I don't mean the nature of consciousness or internal experience (which is unfalsifiable) The way I've been thinking about it is not that internal experience is unfalsifiable, along with the modern science connotation that everything that is unfalsifiable is automatically irrelevant (which would be quite absurd, as everything that is dear and meaningful to humans are all simply cognitive phenomena in the end!). It's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really hate the whole thing about companies promoting using LLMs to change one-liner emails into this long multi-paragraph thing that ends up saying almost nothing ... just wasting everyone's time in reading them (with an extra sprinkling of hallucinations).
LLMs have created more billable hours for me as an attorney because the LLMs convince the client that they need to know more about irrelevant issues, how specific statutes may apply, and other such things. They may ask about specific procedural issues that they would otherwise have no idea about that I then need to explain in greater detail. It reliably bloats things that would be a .1 into .5 or more.
My favorite part about LLMs is that their insufficiency as legal aids (Aides? Aids.) seems to be slowly cluing-in the general public as to how Byzantine and "inside baseball" our legal system has become. (This is a bad thing.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finally, someone else understands that writing is not the goal, the entire point of all of this is our communications between one another and this market for narrative stories is a nice departure and it does convey important knowledge and moral lessons that larger society needs. But it is an indirection, an indirection to the mission of communicating solutions to how to live as a human and that is why we care, why th…
No. I think narrative stories are a "brain hack", in the same way heavily processed food, drugs, clickbait, soap operas and TikTok are brain hacks, combined with some exclusivity status signaling games. They're just old enough to have gained a cultural cachet that more modern forms of entertainment don't yet have. Same for art, music, comedy and culture generally. There is nothing wrong with those "brain hacks", if t…
This leads me to thinking that a bigger proportion of readers would care who wrote the works, than predicted by naive thinking. Certainly more compared to video. I'm not negating that some would not: mainly ones who have a very specific taste and just want lots of that.
The author's name (or the book being famous) is a huge factor in selecting what to read, both for prestige and selection reasons (by which I mean selecting something that has a chance of being good). Beyond that, it has been a hellscape for matching the "worthy" authors with readers since... I don't know, the industrial revolution? For the 1800s already there are heaps of writers no one has heard about. The institutions and publishing houses meant to select famous authors is not something I would lament the death of. Though it will exist if only because many people read for social proof.
I would be interested about the arguments against reading self-published books. I know they are extremely likely to be bad, but I'm curious if there's something deeper beyond this statistical argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average person, yes. A professional, competent writer, editor, journalist? Not even close (currently).
Again - did you even read the article you are commenting on? The author gives an example of a novel that had a huge advance offered on it and then pulled because of AI concerns... in order to get to the point of having the offer a bunch of competent writers, editors etc didn't notice.
I'm sorry, but I have about 1M counter examples.
LLMs are writing as well as humans for people who think writing words is the goal. Printing presses also write words better than humans. LLMs are solving the problem one layer higher than printing presses, but still several layers down from the top. Note that LLMs aren't useless, since they have other strengths which can make them equal or better than humans in certain applications. For instance, they can tirelessly…
I really want to know what people specifically mean when they allude to some "higher" level of cognition that humans have above LLM's when it comes to useful outputs. I don't mean the nature of consciousness or internal experience (which is unfalsifiable), I mean the essence of cognitive labor as a tool: writing is about relating concepts, drawing comparisons, aggregating elements of reality into a fictive but believ…
sorry the brain is a tool to who exactly in this ostensibly reductive worldview?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With IA, creation is cheap. It's inevitable that automation would make some jobs disappear. There's no solution, less people will be able to earn a living for creating art, I think. What do you think about this?
I think that's probably at least somewhat true, and regrettable/something to be worked on in your community, and a very different statement from > [it] is better when people create for fun. If they need to create to earn a living they are forced to create and that is not the best incentive to create. Fun is a better incentive
E.g. after Michelangelo created his style, then IA can mimick it almost for free. Imagine people with great talent like him, expressing their ideas and also being able to use IA to create, plus thousands of less talented people basing their AI art on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would there need to be a stigma for getting paid based on a tool they used? Is it being used a tool, or is it being used as a ghostwriter? There is often stigma attached to that when done by humans. > Artist have a stigma for using photoshop instead of canvas? Yes, that used to very much be the case. Now it is often considered a different form of expression, so loses a lot of the stigma mostly by not pretending…
If it's being used as a ghostwriter, they don't get copyright protection, making it harder to profit off the work.
* as discussed elsewhere in these threads, the judgements pertaining to copyright not applying to generated work all only seem to cover entirely generated work where there is very little human activity after the prompt.
* even if the generated work is public domain, the derived work (the edited version) is not necessarily so (much like Disney's derived works created from the tales of Hans Christian Andersen's writings).
If they are not doing significant work after the ghostwriting, then sod'em, they are earning the stigma of essentially committing fraud to get that profit from the work.