[szopa]

I’m starting to feel that comments about an article being AI-generated are super low value AND super low effort. Who cares? Soon most of the text you’ll be dealing with is gonna be AI generated. But there’s still good and bad AI generated content — start judging it by its merits.

[gwern]

It's a lot easier to look at the whitespace and paragraphs, realize it's a LLM, plug it into Pangram to see that it gets 100% (unsurprisingly), and click to close; than it is to read it with a sucker's good faith and realize that it never says anything concrete or meaningful or unpredictable and contains only junk like canned etymologies or cliche quotes.

[allthetime]

“Soon most of the text you’ll be dealing with is gonna be AI generated.”

No thanks. Myself and many others will continue to seek out real thoughts written by human writers.

Your mindset and willingness to flippantly dispose of human communication is deeply concerning to me.

Your days should not be spent deciding if the machine generated data you’re constantly consuming is of a specific calibre.

[lacy_tinpot]

It's fun to see the false idea that intelligence and thinking are what make humans human begin to collapse in real time. It's one of those structural pillars of human identity invented by some philosophers too lost in their own grandiosity from quite some time ago that we've all mistaken it for gospel. That notion was false to begin with, but I think a lot of us forgot that. So it'll be interesting to watch how that invented part of "being human" is eroded away, or rather is going through a revolution.

The reality is that being human stands independent of that idea.

Thoughts and ideas of course will continue to be the domain of humans, but as curators/extending our intellectual creativity beyond just the mere craft of writing. So even that story, that humans are thinking beings, will continue on for the foreseeable future.

[operatingthetan]

>It's fun to see the false idea that intelligence and thinking are what makes humans human begin to collapse in real time.

As soon as LLMs start thinking please let us know!

[lacy_tinpot]

If they weren't producing things that are indistinguishable from human produced products people wouldn't be against them.

[operatingthetan]

On the contrary the reason people are against them is that the things produced are distinguishable from human created products. E.g. pushback against "slopification."

[lacy_tinpot]

The pushback against "slopification" is an ad hoc justification that is nebulous and vague enough for people to use to feel superior about their opinions and ideas, but has no genuine grounding.

But even if we consider the slopification argument, don't factories produce slop as well? Fast fashion is notorious for producing slop. But at the same time factories also produce are cars, shovels, housing, screws, etc. are they "slop"? How about computers? And other advanced manufacturing? Still slop?

Even if we consider the slopification argument, it isn't strong enough.

The use of AI to produce slop is a non-argument. On the same level of argument that an open internet would produce scams, proliferation of pornography, and gross commercialization/ads. All true, but still a lot of new value was unlocked from n order effects.

[Cider9986]

If AI-generated wasn't a reliable synonym for classifying bad content, I'd consider that.

edit: actually I wouldn't. I do not want to interact with an internet that is dead. AI-edited or consulted, that's fair. Generated—no thanks.

[savolai]

In the case of this article, the calling out also seems to be without merit.

From the about page: ” When I’m not writing code, I write prose, short and long, ranging from personal anecdotes in tech to philosophical musings on how technology shapes culture, society, and the individual self.”

[OccamsMirror]

Of course this comment response is AI generated. The snake eating its own tail.