Ask HN: Why disparage AI while attributing ideas to AI when written with it?

[amichail]

This is something that I see done all the time on social media.

If you write up an idea you had with AI, people will say that the idea came from AI. And yet these same people will also disparage AIs abilities.

This seems contradictory to me.

[jr_isidore]

People will say that the idea came from AI

That's presumably because you said AI helped you with the idea.

These same people will disparage AI's abilities

Where's the contradiction? Ask an AI to rephrase your question so that it makes sense.

[Npovview]

Another point is AI should be so advanced that only one shotting the solution is truly considered as AI.

90% of everything is crap. Sturgeon's Law. We produce crap all the time and yet expect AI to be perfect the first time. Have they ever seen the first draft of any book?

[gus_massa]

> And yet these same people will also disparage AIs abilities.

Most of the times, it's doneby two different groups of people.

[bigyabai]

Because LLMs are expert liars?

[amichail]

I mean if they don't think AI is particularly creative, why attribute novel ideas that you had but wrote with the help of AI to the AI?

[bigyabai]

Why does it matter what people think? The attribution ultimately doesn't matter, a truly novel idea is self-evident and speaks for itself.

[amichail]

The problem is that most people on social media don't think like that.

[bigyabai]

That's not a problem, though. You aren't owed attention for a theoretical idea, especially if you waste people's time with AI boilerplate text.

Those ideas will almost always be ignored if the author neglects their due diligence to test the idea and document real-world results. Influencers like Jeff Geerling and Tom Scott would be (rightfully!) hated if they published their video ideas in the form of an AI-generated outline.