[jtwoodhouse]

Justifying AI writing with the example of women’s writing is false equivalence and, frankly, demeaning to women.

As humans, women suffer for their work and literally bring the rest of us into the world. AI has no feeling or stake in this world. It has suffered for nothing and merely regurgitates received wisdom. I will take one handwritten note from my mother over the output of a billion-dollar Shakespeare emulator.

Once again for the umpteenth time, why should any of us be bothered to read something someone couldn’t be bothered to write?

[djoldman]

Can a rich westerner with no stake in China write text of value about Chinese politics?

Is it necessary to suffer to create something worth reading?

I'm not criticizing, I'm curious.

[jtwoodhouse]

Experience is suffering.

A rich westerner is free to write whatever he wants about China but without firsthand experience or skin in the game, he shouldn’t expect his takes to be credible or respected.

[djoldman]

Mkay but what about the idea that having skin in the game encourages bias? Can't someone be more objective exactly if they're not involved?

I think there may be room for all kinds of writing to provide different value.

AI may be filling a different kind of niche.

[jtwoodhouse]

AI doesn’t solve that problem. It reflects the biases of the trainers.

[taneq]

I guess death of the author only applies if they were alive, right?