51–60 of 71 posts
Is there an archive anywhere? People can argue to no end based on some whimsical assumptions of what the blog was and why it was taken down, but it really comes down to the content. I have found even o3 cannot write high-quality articles on the topics I want to write about.
AI generated web content has got to be one of the most counterproductive things to use AI on. If I wanted an AI summary of a topic or answer to a question, a chatbot of choice can easily provide that for you. There’s no need for yet another piece of blogspam that isn’t introducing new information into the world. That content is already available inside the AI model. At some point, we’ll get so oversaturated with fake…
This is the fundamental reason why I am in favor of a ban on simply posting AI-generated content in user forums. It isn't that AI is fundamentally bad per se, and to the extent that it is problematic now, that badness may well be a temporary situation. It's because there's not a lot of utility in you as a human being basically just being an intermediary to what some AI says today. Anyone who wants that can go get it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we wish for: better search. What we got: more content polluting search, aka worse search.
I don't think better search is exactly what we want. It would also be great to have less quantity and more quality. I think optimizing only search to make it better (including AI) only furthers the quantity aspect of content, not quality. Optimizing search or trying to make it better is the wrong goal IMO.
Having summarized results appear immediately with links to the sources is preferable to opening multiple tabs and sifting through low-quality content and clickbait.
Many real-world problems aren't as simple as "type some keywords" and get relevant results. AI excels as a "rubber duck", i.e., a tool to explore possible solutions, troubleshoot issues, discover new approaches, etc.
Yes, LLMs are useful for junior developers. But for experienced developers, they're more valuable.
It's a tool, just like search engines.
Airplanes are also a tool. Would you limit your travel to destinations within walking distance? Or avoid checking the weather because forecasts use Bayesian probability (and some mix of machine learning)? Or avoid power tools because they deny the freedom of doing things the hard way?
One can imagine that when early humans began wearing clothing to keep warm, there were naysayers who preferred to stay cold.
The most creative people I know are using AI to further their creativity. Example: storytelling, world building, voice models, game development, artwork, assistants that mimic their personality, helping loved ones enjoy a better quality of life as they age, smart home automations to help their grandmother, text-to-speech for the visually impaired or those who have trouble reading, custom voice commands, and so on.
Should I tell my mom to turn off Siri and avoid highlighting text and tapping "Speak" because it uses AI under the hood? I think not.
They embrace it, just like creative people have always done.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/05/google-is-reimaginin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: GPT-4 and later variants, such as o3 and 4.5, have such a characteristic style that it's hard not to spot them. Em dashes, "it's not just (x), it's (y)," "underscoring (z)," the limited number of ways it structures sentences and paragraphs and likes to end things with an emphasized conclusion, and I could go on all day. DeepSeek is a little bit better at writing in a generic and uncharacteristic tone, b…
If you ask them to speak in a different voice, they will. It's only characteristic if the user has made no effort at all to mask that it is AI generated content.
And even when the most obvious "tells" are removed, articles can sometimes nevertheless seem AI-written. Just check this one out:
> https://searchengineland.com/ai-visibility-aexecution-proble...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think better search is exactly what we want. It would also be great to have less quantity and more quality. I think optimizing only search to make it better (including AI) only furthers the quantity aspect of content, not quality. Optimizing search or trying to make it better is the wrong goal IMO.
Better search implies separating the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately SEO spam took over and poisoned the whole space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think better search is exactly what we want. It would also be great to have less quantity and more quality. I think optimizing only search to make it better (including AI) only furthers the quantity aspect of content, not quality. Optimizing search or trying to make it better is the wrong goal IMO.
Arguably, the opposite is true. Ars Technica and others have written about this extensively [0]. Having summarized results appear immediately with links to the sources is preferable to opening multiple tabs and sifting through low-quality content and clickbait. Many real-world problems aren't as simple as "type some keywords" and get relevant results. AI excels as a "rubber duck", i.e., a tool to explore possible sol…
I confirmed that from my own memory via a Google AI summary, quoted verbatim above. Of course, I would never have learned it in the first place had somebody not written it down.
Up until a few weeks ago, my LinkedIn seemed to become better because of AI, but now it seems everything is lazy AI slop. We meatbags are great pattern recognizers. Here is a list of my current triggers: "The twist?", "Then something remarkable happened", That said, this is more of an indictment of the lazyness of the authors to provide clearer instructions on the style needed so the app defaults to such patterns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguably, the opposite is true. Ars Technica and others have written about this extensively [0]. Having summarized results appear immediately with links to the sources is preferable to opening multiple tabs and sifting through low-quality content and clickbait. Many real-world problems aren't as simple as "type some keywords" and get relevant results. AI excels as a "rubber duck", i.e., a tool to explore possible sol…
Socrates had a skeptical view of written language, preferring oral communication and philosophical inquiry. This perspective is primarily presented through the writings of his student, Plato, particularly in the dialogue Phaedrus. I confirmed that from my own memory via a Google AI summary, quoted verbatim above. Of course, I would never have learned it in the first place had somebody not written it down.
He did not. You should read the dialogue.
> I confirmed that from my own memory via a Google AI summary, quoted verbatim above.
This is the biggest problem with LLMs in my view. They are great at confirmation bias.
In Phaedrus 257c–279c Plato portrays Socrates discussing rhetoric and the merits of writing speeches not writing in general.
"Socrates: Then that is clear to all, that writing speeches is not in itself a disgrace.
Phaedrus: How can it be?
Socrates: But the disgrace, I fancy, consists in speaking or writing not well, but disgracefully and badly.
Phaedrus: Evidently."
I mean, writing had existed for 3 millennia by the point this dialogue was written.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better search implies separating the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately SEO spam took over and poisoned the whole space.
Better search implies more sophisticated search which means more opportunities to game the search.