111–120 of 493 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually practical advice to avoid wasting your time on nonsense.
Plot twist, 100% likely you've read and shared humanized AI content. If you read the summary/abstract and nope out because there's nothing interesting or insightful, whatever, but if you were interested in subject of the article and its assertions and you nope out because of an AI writing tic, that's just toolish.
I'm sure this has happened. If the author can speak with authority about everything that has written, then ya, I have to concede that is fine. It's obviously the most true when you are going to be engaging with the author. If you ask them a question and they respond, "I'm no sure, the LLM wrote it," that is a huge problem (and pretty pathetic, I might add).
> but if you were interested in subject of the article and its assertions and you nope out because of an AI writing tic, that's just toolish.
Meh, it I can find another article on the same subject written by a person then it's not too toolish. I've never liked this argument. It's the same thing with music. Even if I like a piece of music, and then I find out it's AI, I'm not going to listen to it. I can understand why people think this is stupid, but there is SO much music--even before it exponentially exploded with AI--that I can find something else I really like created by a person. Especially since when something really tickles my fancy, I like to read everything I can about the artist (which is an indirect form of engagement).
To me there are different motivations to include imagery and some of them are just fine with AI generation. If the imagery actually goes to the substance of helping to illustrate or explain the actual content then it seems very superficial to reject it based on how it was generated. In fact it is kind of stupid to insist someone slavishly draw something by hand that could have been done an easier way. The problem com…
Well, the issue is the majority of AI images seems to fall into this category, which then trains my brain to treat all AI images in this way, rather than sifting for the few golden use cases where it's legitimately adding value.
At work, for example, I'm more likely to go brains off if someone presenting content shows an AI generated image in their slides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's about what you created But you didn't create anything in this case. Not the images at least. Which then casts doubt on the rest of the writing in said blog post.
There is an artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. The film director doesn’t design the sets or give the performances or do the makeup, but they place an authorial stamp on the production by selecting what will and will not end up in the frame.
I never said there wasn't, but I also wasn't talking about human roles where people in larger creative teams have some kind of artistic say in the final output of a much larger process involving other talented humans. That is a very different example and I think you know that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's about what you created But you didn't create anything in this case. Not the images at least. Which then casts doubt on the rest of the writing in said blog post.
But you didn't create anything if you used Photoshop... You didn't create anything if you used synth and autotune... You didn't do any scientific research if you used a calculator. You didn't do anything if you just piped together two programs. I've heard it all before. Gate keepers wanna keep the gate as long as they can.
Public shaming and rejection are probably the best way to teach people it's wasting people's time and disrespectful. If you couldn't otherwise write it yourself for whatever reason it's best not to until you can.
[flagged]
Ethical: favour the notion that humans should be who we look to for writing, and that some of them are hopefully meaningfully compensated for it
Political: favour the decentralisation of effort away from US cloud AI firms
Practical: there's too much to read in the world; a very useful quality signal is to favour things obvious people put obvious effort into
Personal: it is soul-destroying that we live in a world that suddenly devalues people and their efforts so completely.
I think perhaps you are showing your own bias here. But abusing people for their chosen principles is not a business-winning strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a useful heuristic. There's a good chance it's just nonsense rather than interesting information that was AI edited. Just give me your prompt. I'd rather read the raw prompt than the grandiose slop output. It's way to verbose, and enumerates every useless microscopic detail, real and imagined.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's about what you created But you didn't create anything in this case. Not the images at least. Which then casts doubt on the rest of the writing in said blog post.
But you didn't create anything if you used Photoshop... You didn't create anything if you used synth and autotune... You didn't do any scientific research if you used a calculator. You didn't do anything if you just piped together two programs. I've heard it all before. Gate keepers wanna keep the gate as long as they can.
To me there are different motivations to include imagery and some of them are just fine with AI generation. If the imagery actually goes to the substance of helping to illustrate or explain the actual content then it seems very superficial to reject it based on how it was generated. In fact it is kind of stupid to insist someone slavishly draw something by hand that could have been done an easier way. The problem com…
This. If it's actually an illustrative part of the text, include it, even if it's AI generated. Not everyone who can write can do graphics. If it's only decoration, leave it out. No matter whether AI, stock or custom made.