I found that it's not just text. It's also design and overall user experience. If you have an eye for it, your brain picks up on it immediately with the little pills, busy landing pages, the use of serifs everywhere, bronze accents, and lots of dark mode.
I'm becoming AI-blind
491–500 of 533 posts
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#492There's some psychological mechanism by which my brain immediately recognizes AI generated text and just short-circuits to "there is no information here". And when I force myself to read AI-generated text I realize I'm making my brain do creative work to impart meaning to the words. It is exhausting because my brain is literally trying to do a just-in-time rewrite of the text into something valuable. Something is dee…
I feel you. Everytime I need to read a long text I just assume it's AI nowadays and I hate it because most of the time I'm right.
I hate how AI writes. How much numb filler bullshit is in content I need to go through for my job.
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#493Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But that is precisely what human mathematicians do, prove new theorems by combining ones proven earlier. This is only a very very small part of what human mathematicians actually do. This is just a lack of imagination and/or self awareness on your part.
There's gotta be nicer ways of saying that.
It's also not true, mathematicians are already saying that current AI is changing the field of mathematical research profoundly.
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#494There's some psychological mechanism by which my brain immediately recognizes AI generated text and just short-circuits to "there is no information here". And when I force myself to read AI-generated text I realize I'm making my brain do creative work to impart meaning to the words. It is exhausting because my brain is literally trying to do a just-in-time rewrite of the text into something valuable. Something is dee…
The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever. No matter how much investors and tech companies want you to believe that they are on the verge of super intelligence, nothing I've seen to date can…
I am firmly realistic on the overhyped nature of AI, but which discoveries in the last 100 years are not "a composition of solutions humans have developed and documented elsewhere" ?
Is that basically every new discovery? And under the strictest definition of novel and NOT falling into your composition of previous solutions what is that standard of proof to beat your criteria? Is a novel discovery not allowed to use English but must invent their own language? Must they invent their own math - these are hyperbole for illustration but I think its not far from that before you could just argue anything based off it is a composition of existing ideas
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have actually little idea how human brains work. Every age thinks they know how they work, and then every subsequent age laughs at the previous age’s rudimentary understanding. We gave a Nobel prize to the psychiatrist for inventing a method to remove the frontal lobes of a brain through the nose in 1949. Lobotomies were performed through the 70s. We are likely doing similar if not subtler but worse things today (…
Yes and in actuality we dont need to know how humans brain's work to make progress. Just like how airplanes don't flap their wings.
Is this progress in the room with us right now?
The state of population level mental health seems to be declining in most measurable categories.
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#496Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#497My son is currently learning Romanian and I was trying to help him with verbs. I don’t know Romanian but recalled when learning a foreign language for the first time it really helped me to break down how a verb form or tense worked in English, then learn the equivalent in the new language. So I wanted to make some charts and pages that he could use as learning resources. I used Claude to help. I don’t know how to qui…
Feels like the way a video game will render the outside of a wall or solid surface, but you can run into it and warp partly through and there's nothing internal to it at all.
Like backface culling--as soon as you walk to see it from a different angle, the depth vanishes.
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
My view is that these sorts of things are not possible for AI in general. Though we can create things and name them “will” and “desire”. Software deals with metaphors. Your Amazon shopping cart is a metaphor of a real shopping cart. You your desktop and your file system, etc. are metaphors of real items. But we don’t mistake the metaphor for its object, even from inanimate objects to their software counterparts (shop…
> My view is that these sorts of things are not possible for AI in general. I wonder what it would take build an artificial system that has these qualities. > Software deals with metaphors. This is me wondering again: what's fundamentally different between software running on a machine compared to what's happening in our brains? In both cases you have energy flow following a pattern. It's conceivable to create a syst…
> what's fundamentally different between software running on a machine compared to what's happening in our brains? In both cases you have energy flow following a pattern.
Assuming we’ve scratched the surface of the complexity of the brain. I’d say in one case a human with a will is steering that flow of energy. In the other case it is a probabilistic algorithm steering the flow of energy. The AI is not interacting with world with its own will. I see that as a big difference.
There are presuppositions that go beyond the realm of software engineering that guide one’s views of these things. One is whether you believe the material world is all that is, and that human consciousness is a product of the brain—or that there is such a thing as the soul or spirit of man. From the material perspective you may posit that if you emulate the brain then a sort of AI consciousness could arise. Or that emulating the patterns of the brain equates to emulating personhood. (Though what is material consciousness? I’d say consciousness is by nature immaterial.) I’m not a materialist, and I don’t believe the conclusions that arise from it’s perspectives are accurate.
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#499Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Chinese room is a good Rorschach test for this kind of thing (but not a good thought experiment, IMO, because it's obviously correct or obviously wrong depending on where you're already coming from), but also it's not really about intelligence per se, but more abstractly awareness and more adjacent to consciousness than intelligence, and these are not the same thing (though it does seem like a lot of people have…
It all comes down to semantics. And yeah, with the thought experiment, Searle presents three axioms of what could constitute intelligence. Then proposes the chinese room thought experiment as an approval of his third rule, "Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics." Which only makes sense when you take the other two rules together. Oddly enough, defining intelligence with our capabilit…
The thing is it doesn't really need creative counter-arguments, it's basically just assuming its conclusion. If you disagree with the conclusion, the argument is nonsense because Searle is just saying 'well the man doesn't understand, so nothing does', and if you agree with the conclusion you don't really need to jump through any hoops to get to it, the third rule is just obviously following from the first and second. And again it's not really talking about intelligence at all, Searle allows that the machine is intelligent from the start, he just rejects that it has any understanding of meaning.
Re: I'm becoming AI-blind
#500If a coworker sends me a copy/paste from a chatbot - I can't bring myself to read it. I know it probably* has something useful; but it's just a visceral reaction.