Proof of care in the age of AI

You mean there's a human creative element that is lost. LLMs are creative just as humans are. I had an LLM write something fairly creative, and people on HN loved it (I think it was clear that it was LLM generated).

I had an LLM write a song about a piece of technology, and one of the key folks behind the technology loved it, and reached out to me to get permission to play it in the next conference about that technology.[1]

Normal people can appreciate LLM creativity. That's why I mentioned disorders.

> 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.

As Theodore Sturgeon said "90% of everything is crap". He had it wrong - the percentage is much higher. Most of the human generated stuff in the categories you listed above are crap. Why put the spotlight on LLMs when they also produce crap?

> 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.

You are blindly looking at only one facet of human communication. Much of human communication is also misunderstood, miscommunicated, and breaks those empathetic connections and cause social problems. And I'm not talking about bad human actors, but ordinary folks who, in their attempts to create connection, make things unwittingly go in the opposite direction. These are not exceptional situations - you'd see plenty of it in any large HN thread in the pre-LLM days.

Let's not romanticize human communications of yore by remembering only the (rare) positive examples.

> 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.

You state mere opinion as fact, and feel comfort by surrounding yourself with those who think likewise (much of the HN crowd). It is not grounded on anything.

If Jill used an LLM to state what she intended, and it did it in a way she approved, and Jack can't connect with the person because an LLM was at play, the problem is not with the LLM or the Jill. She is trying to connect, and may well be doing it in a more effective manner than she would have without.

Just as when writing something important, where strong emotions can get involved, we share a draft with someone to get feedback, people will share it with an LLM to get feedback. Yet people like the OP will criticize them for doing so (the part I quoted in my comment).

At the end of the day, if Jill got an LLM to help with her writing, and confirmed that the final text reflects what she intended, and Jack says he can't trust any of it because an LLM touched it, then Jack is clearly signaling a lack of respect for Jill. She put in the effort to communicate, put in effort to proofread/edit, and Jack has labeled her and moved on.

If Jack doesn't trust Jill to use an LLM appropriately, then Jack shouldn't bother reading anything Jill writes. The presence of an LLM is a red herring.

[1] Silly in retrospect. I didn't create it - why should I be the one giving permission?

But what a great idea nevertheless - proof of care! Instead of checking if you are human and not a malicious bot, they shoud require a proof that you do care about what you are going to access. Like - I don't know - write by hand on the screen a short essay on how accessing the site will make you happy.

EDIT: Or - better yet - make a tattoo with an URL of the site you want to access, and then upload a selfie.

I have one of those. It's me. I'm my personally aligned local agent.

You can be yours too, as long as the atrophy hasn't set in yet.