Earlier quoted context omitted.
> like the double standard between anti-AI and pro-AI claims, one of which gets to make claims based on cherry-picked anecdotes, and the other which must produce rigorous studies This statement is honestly so ridiculous that I felt it didn't warrant a direct response, but here's one anyway: AI enthusiasts have been proudly proclaiming for literal years that AI makes them 10x as productive based on cherry-picked anecd…
> This statement is honestly so ridiculous that I felt it didn't warrant a direct response, but here's one anyway: AI enthusiasts have been proudly proclaiming for literal years that AI makes them 10x as productive based on cherry-picked anecdotes with zero empirical evidence to back it up. It's way, way too late to claim hypocrisy here. As I stated under the original submission about this topic, irrational anti-AI b…
I don't know who asked you to do it. I wouldn't have done it. Personally, the original intent matters far more to me. You intended to submit an AI-generated article, defending AI, to be read by humans. Anything short of taking the article down and rewriting the entire thing from scratch doesn't meaningfully change that.
> Additionally, my process is often giving it exactly what I want to say, more or less, and having it HTML-format it and insert the templated numbers and UI widgets around that text.
Sorry but you're just further proving my point here. You are so deeply invested in AI that even just manually writing some English text into a static HTML file is something you consider to be below you.
Imagine going back in time 5 years and telling someone: "In the future, nobody uses text editors. On the rare occasion that we actually want to write something to a text file verbatim, we instead recite the text to a complex artificial intelligence algorithm that uses large amounts of computing power to process said text and then recite back a command that writes the text to a file. Sometimes the algorithm decides to be a smartass and change our words or add an extra quip, but that's all part of the fun."
> That's not ignoring the bias, that's literally restating that you think the bias is there.
I was referring to the bias within the actual text of the article vs the inherent bias displayed by the very concept of an AI-generated article defending AI. Passages like these:
> The thread did not stop at words. As is typical for anti-AI users, it eventually escalated to fantasies of violence
Make it fairly obvious that you went into this project with the primary goal of proving such people wrong, possibly backed by a sense of moral superiority relative to a few weirdos on the internet who took things too far (such individuals are present in every online discussion that gets big enough, and their actions do not represent the whole).
> And you're so committed to your preconceived notions that anything made with AI must be bad, wrong, or not worth your time
"Bad" or "wrong" may be subjective, but it's definitely not worth my time, no. If you didn't consider it worth your time to write it, why do you believe it's worth someone else's time to read it? Again, it doesn't matter if you went back to rewrite parts of it after being criticized, as that doesn't change the original intent.
Submitting an AI generated article and expecting meaningful human responses only makes sense if you consider your own time to be worth more than that of others. Do you?