31–40 of 93 posts
This is personal opinion anecdata, but I'm noticing the following. It's only the mediocres that rail against AI; actual geniuses are like "hey, another tool. Cool."
If you use an AI to generate all your work, then are you the genius or is the AI?
>Olga Tokarczuk has responded to the controversy over her reputed use of AI. https://lithub.com/olga-tokarczuk-has-responded-to-the-contr... Update: On Tuesday afternoon, Tokarczuk sent a statement to Lit Hub via her publisher, Riverhead, denying she used AI in her writing for anything other than research. Read it here: >After Nobel Prize-winner Olga Tokarczuk’s recent remarks implying she had used AI to write her re…
What? So this whole thing is blown out of proportion? If she didn’t use LLMs to write the literal sentences then what’s the issue?
the issue is that some people have an insatiable need to cause controversy, or rail against (or for) anything AI/AI-adjacent, to speak in half truths and generate "engagement", etc.
This is personal opinion anecdata, but I'm noticing the following. It's only the mediocres that rail against AI; actual geniuses are like "hey, another tool. Cool."
If you use an AI to generate all your work, then are you the genius or is the AI?
It's not like you push a button and it releases something awesome.
Cool, I also use AI as a tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that surprising, it's the generation that for the most part told their children that art was a dead end and a waste of time because there's no money in it. If you start off seeing art through that lens why would you care whether it's made by a person or a computer?
Wait, so I'm clear, the idea here is that Olga Tokarczuk uses AI because she's boomer that believes art is a dead end and a waste of time?
someone like Olga Tokarczuk would presumably be an exception to the general statement, considering her career makes it clear that she doesn't subscribe to the "art is a dead end and there is no money in it" philosophy ryanmcbride is describing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you use an AI to generate all your work, then are you the genius or is the AI?
If you generate work enough above average to be awarded major international prizes they you are. If everyone produces the same quality from the same AI it will simply move the bar.
It's certainly going to exacerbate the advantage that wealthy kids going to elite universities have at becoming geniuses.
This is personal opinion anecdata, but I'm noticing the following. It's only the mediocres that rail against AI; actual geniuses are like "hey, another tool. Cool."
For now. Soon, the ladder will be a pair of stilts; best get to the very top before that point.
>Olga Tokarczuk has responded to the controversy over her reputed use of AI. https://lithub.com/olga-tokarczuk-has-responded-to-the-contr... Update: On Tuesday afternoon, Tokarczuk sent a statement to Lit Hub via her publisher, Riverhead, denying she used AI in her writing for anything other than research. Read it here: >After Nobel Prize-winner Olga Tokarczuk’s recent remarks implying she had used AI to write her re…
What? So this whole thing is blown out of proportion? If she didn’t use LLMs to write the literal sentences then what’s the issue?