Why can't the pro-AI crowd just be honest about using AI to do the work for them?
One cannot put their own name on words they did not write and be offended when people don’t respect their integrity.
A reader would be upset if they picked up a book by Stephen King only to find out he didn’t write it.
A reader would be upset if they read an article by Maggie Haberman only to find out she didn’t write it.
I believe the reader has a right to know if the person who put their name on a piece of writing actually wrote it.
I want to make this next point crystal clear:
I don't mind if somebody uses generative AI. I just want them to credit the LLM that did the writing. I want people to be honest about who or what did the actual writing.
And we all know why those who can’t be honest can’t be honest.
Yes, I would have much less complaint if we all knew what was AI and what was not and if people didn't use it to pretend to be something they are not. Most of us value authenticity and reject deception. Unfortunately, many use AI mostly for the latter.
This is not a reverse day argument sketch! It is AI all the way down. The slop machine wants to turn everything into slop. Funny how we used to think grey goo scenario is the worst with nano tech; now we got the grey goo of thinking.
"Effort was the great filter for things of value. If there is no effort, there is no filter. It is all indistinguishable. Everyone will enter that space and contribute, but we will not be able to separate those who understand the problem space from those who don’t.
Those who don’t understand take value away from that space. They are a burden, filling it with auto-generated noise. They are disruptors leaching value, not contributing value. They entered a space they didn’t understand because attention remains the prize for the taking regardless."
Of interest is that this appears to me (a former educator and poet) to be the culmination of something that was already going on for several decades, sadly. Certainly the literary racket became swamped with noise. Effort was no longer valued. It was various forms of status, at first tied to notions of equity, but ultimately to numbers of followers. Publishing is now tied to popularity as expressed by "views" and "followers"--which makes sense, if those numbers represent potential sales. Often enough, however, book buyers weren't reading these books, they were buying them as gifts or keeping them on the shelf as a symbol of belonging.
I trust you see where I'm going with this. The zombie culture was already in play. Now it has reached its satirical apogee. The world you predicted has now arrived: bots are talking to bots and no one cares. One can only hope that folks will start looking for real offline experiences instead and we'll find ourselves in some sort of renaissance.
Well said! AI hasn't necessarily created a bunch of new problems as much as it has massively accelerated existing problems. We were already addicted to things like attention, but AI optimized it substantially further.
We definitely could use a renaissance inspired by a return to the values of authenticity.
In which case, we are going to need to develop what was long taken away, a new town square. Where might we imagine such places to occur, and how to make them happen?
I’m really glad someone else pointed this out. My paranoid mind finds the hypocrisy and amoral dissonance so intense that I can’t imagine there’s not a rational reason behind it. As in, I can’t imagine anyone doing something so blatantly self contradictory without what they felt was a good reason. What might that be? Maybe it’s just to mine attention. You might be right. But that seems too shallow for me. There must be something deeper and more motivating.
I am extremely heartened to see you posting again.
Please know that the people who are paying attention are extremely concerned about where this is all going.
You remain the best critic of so-called artificial intelligence I've ever encountered. Stay human, and don't worry about the numbers. There's a backlash, and it's growing. Keep up the good work, please.
> Effort was the great filter for things of value. If there is no effort, there is no filter. It is all indistinguishable. Everyone will enter that space and contribute, but we will not be able to separate those who understand the problem space from those who don’t.
This is hilarious because it is so true and so misapplied. Effort is the great filter precisely because nobody can recognize value if it doesn't come wrapped in it. It's true you won't be able to separate who understands the problem space and who doesn't, because you never were able to do that.
But that doesn't mean it's actually indistinguishable, it just means people never bothered to distinguish because they never needed to. And this is changing.
I'm being figurative here. But it seems less and less people are writing their own content. I've seen very well known, respected professors I've followed for years start publishing AI-written material. As well as video podcasters, who I know are real, but they are now reading AI-written scripts for their podcast.
AI writing might sound more polished, but it also all sounds the same. I think people are recognizing it and getting tired of the blandness of it. Everyone is losing their unique voice that is their own. I think many people prefer imperfect authenticity over polished, bland, sales-pitch style writing that all sounds the same.
Why can't the pro-AI crowd just be honest about using AI to do the work for them?
One cannot put their own name on words they did not write and be offended when people don’t respect their integrity.
A reader would be upset if they picked up a book by Stephen King only to find out he didn’t write it.
A reader would be upset if they read an article by Maggie Haberman only to find out she didn’t write it.
I believe the reader has a right to know if the person who put their name on a piece of writing actually wrote it.
I want to make this next point crystal clear:
I don't mind if somebody uses generative AI. I just want them to credit the LLM that did the writing. I want people to be honest about who or what did the actual writing.
And we all know why those who can’t be honest can’t be honest.
Yes, I would have much less complaint if we all knew what was AI and what was not and if people didn't use it to pretend to be something they are not. Most of us value authenticity and reject deception. Unfortunately, many use AI mostly for the latter.
This is not a reverse day argument sketch! It is AI all the way down. The slop machine wants to turn everything into slop. Funny how we used to think grey goo scenario is the worst with nano tech; now we got the grey goo of thinking.
These paragraphs were spot on:
"Effort was the great filter for things of value. If there is no effort, there is no filter. It is all indistinguishable. Everyone will enter that space and contribute, but we will not be able to separate those who understand the problem space from those who don’t.
Those who don’t understand take value away from that space. They are a burden, filling it with auto-generated noise. They are disruptors leaching value, not contributing value. They entered a space they didn’t understand because attention remains the prize for the taking regardless."
Of interest is that this appears to me (a former educator and poet) to be the culmination of something that was already going on for several decades, sadly. Certainly the literary racket became swamped with noise. Effort was no longer valued. It was various forms of status, at first tied to notions of equity, but ultimately to numbers of followers. Publishing is now tied to popularity as expressed by "views" and "followers"--which makes sense, if those numbers represent potential sales. Often enough, however, book buyers weren't reading these books, they were buying them as gifts or keeping them on the shelf as a symbol of belonging.
I trust you see where I'm going with this. The zombie culture was already in play. Now it has reached its satirical apogee. The world you predicted has now arrived: bots are talking to bots and no one cares. One can only hope that folks will start looking for real offline experiences instead and we'll find ourselves in some sort of renaissance.
Well said! AI hasn't necessarily created a bunch of new problems as much as it has massively accelerated existing problems. We were already addicted to things like attention, but AI optimized it substantially further.
We definitely could use a renaissance inspired by a return to the values of authenticity.
In which case, we are going to need to develop what was long taken away, a new town square. Where might we imagine such places to occur, and how to make them happen?
Been thinking deeply and practically about this very concept!
Do share.
I’m really glad someone else pointed this out. My paranoid mind finds the hypocrisy and amoral dissonance so intense that I can’t imagine there’s not a rational reason behind it. As in, I can’t imagine anyone doing something so blatantly self contradictory without what they felt was a good reason. What might that be? Maybe it’s just to mine attention. You might be right. But that seems too shallow for me. There must be something deeper and more motivating.
I am extremely heartened to see you posting again.
Please know that the people who are paying attention are extremely concerned about where this is all going.
You remain the best critic of so-called artificial intelligence I've ever encountered. Stay human, and don't worry about the numbers. There's a backlash, and it's growing. Keep up the good work, please.
Thank you!
good controversy?
bad controversy?
there is only controversy.
HahahhahhahhahahahahhahahhahahahhahhHahahha
> Effort was the great filter for things of value. If there is no effort, there is no filter. It is all indistinguishable. Everyone will enter that space and contribute, but we will not be able to separate those who understand the problem space from those who don’t.
This is hilarious because it is so true and so misapplied. Effort is the great filter precisely because nobody can recognize value if it doesn't come wrapped in it. It's true you won't be able to separate who understands the problem space and who doesn't, because you never were able to do that.
But that doesn't mean it's actually indistinguishable, it just means people never bothered to distinguish because they never needed to. And this is changing.
I'm being figurative here. But it seems less and less people are writing their own content. I've seen very well known, respected professors I've followed for years start publishing AI-written material. As well as video podcasters, who I know are real, but they are now reading AI-written scripts for their podcast.
AI writing might sound more polished, but it also all sounds the same. I think people are recognizing it and getting tired of the blandness of it. Everyone is losing their unique voice that is their own. I think many people prefer imperfect authenticity over polished, bland, sales-pitch style writing that all sounds the same.
> Puts me in mind of *The Power of the Daleks* where they pretend to be friendly!
ha! yes :-)