|
On the contrary, I completely understand the point of the article. I disagree that there are no people who benefit from another person using AI on their behalf. Everybody has free access to Google, Wikipedia, and Bing - that doesn't make sharing quotes from those sources worthy of abusive language telling people they shouldn't have children. Some people really do find value in another person opening up their ChatGPT subscription, crafting a suitable prompt, and passing on the response. There is absolutely some value in that, and many AI models are not even free. Even just with Google, some people aren't very good at crafting search queries. Crafting a query or a prompt, deciding which model to use, vetting and sharing the response - these all add value beyond just "proxying it slowly and poorly". Replying with an AI response can absolutely be relevant and valuable to a discussion, just as replying with a quote from Wikipedia or some other authority can be. On the other hand, flaming people for trying to help you is, frankly, obnoxious, even if you don't appreciate the help or the manner in which it was offered. |
But AI isn't an authority. If you're using AI as a search engine for other media, then I'd much rather you link to the source than make me wade through "Gemini suggested..." first. We should all know by now that "is this true, Grok?" is not a helpful barometer for anyone.
In your search engine analogy, I'd compare it to someone linking their search query instead of the desired link. Making me do extra work to engage with your point doesn't advance either of our understandings.