[llm_nerd]

>they don't seem to be lamenting that people might go to that channel instead of asking their own fathers.

Much of the anti-AI sentiment has this sort of false dichotomy as its foundation. An imagination that the alternative to AI is the purest form of manual labour in some sort of idealized, bucolic form, filled with heartfelt, purposeful, sincere human connection.

So every time I'm thinking about what to make with the ingredients I have, I should text someone who cooks (I cook, so this is a hypothetical)? What a ridiculous canard, and absolutely no one would appreciate that. I can enjoy human contact without inventing ridiculous justifications.

Further, to quote from Unlearning Economics, everything already was AI [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km2bn0HvUwg], at least in the demonized way that people use that phrase.

Wedding speeches? Overwhelmingly cliche bullshit, and if you've been to a number of weddings it starts to get incredible how blatant this is. The whole manner of "genres" of music, art, and so on, is everyone copying each other and mimicking styles.

Even the recurring "I can spot AI websites!" nonsense, as if everyone wasn't already copy/pasting the trend du jour.

Even programming, this site is stuffed with "I lament the loss of the craft" pearl clutching articles daily, yet most of you are terrible programmers. I mean this as nicely as I can. It's astonishing seeing the actual state of the industry and hearing people imagining the world's most skillful, conscientious, thoughtful developer as the only alternative to AI assistance. It's rather amazing.

And long before AI people were largely just duct-taping together whatever libraries they found mentioned in a StackOverflow post.

Is it possible to hand craft better creations? Absolutely. Was that the norm pre-LLM? LOL, not even remotely. People were churning out enormous volumes of garbage, in every field.

AI isn't the reason people aren't making "human connections", and the foundation of the article is perverse.

[happytoexplain]

>Much of the anti-AI sentiment has this sort of false dichotomy as its foundation. An imagination that the alternative to AI is the purest form of manual labour in some sort of idealized, bucolic form.

This is backwards. This false dichotomy is what irrational reactions against anti-AI sentiment use, not the anti-AI sentiment itself. It is exactly the false dichotomy the parent you are replying to is using.

[llm_nerd]

>This false dichotomy is what irrational reactions against anti-AI sentiment use, not the anti-AI sentiment itself.

This is very LLM. Did you use ChatGPT to write that bounces-off-me-and-sticks-to-you retort?

It's, of course, absolute nonsense.

The very foundation of the essay was AI or dichotomies, and that forms the entire basis of an anti-AI screed. A sort of laughably righteous screed as if everyone else is making bad choices, and this guy has it right.

It's hyperbolic silliness.

[nicbou]

You have a point, even if I hate to admit it.

On the other hand, maybe we should stop doing bullshit things instead of doing them more and faster. Maybe we ought to have fewer, shorter speeches, simpler websites and so on. Instead, we're drowning the world in noise. Speeches written by nobody, about nothing, for nobody in particular.

Sure, humans repeat patterns, but they add their own delightful uniqueness and imperfection to the mix. Tiny random mutations that eventually evolve the genre. Humans get really good at following rules, but then they develop the taste to break them. Wisdom shapes their craft in unpredictable ways.

And I guess that's what being an internet dad is. You live a long, imperfect life and you learn all sorts of lessons, many of which are subtle and never written down, then you apply those lessons to your craft. What can a machine teach us about fatherhood?

[bigstrat2003]

Sure, there's always been a subset of human endeavor which is just phoned-in slop. But AI makes the problem much worse, because it's basically all slop now. Moreover, I am an unabashed human supremacist. I find anything a human does to have some intrinsic value, even if it's not a high quality effort. So if it's the choice between human slop or AI slop, even if it were the same percentage of slop, I would rather have the human slop. At least that has some value due to being made by a human.

[dissahc]

It's an incredibly smug poem that has the vibe of someone fantasizing about winning an argument against someone who doesn't even exist.

The narratives about people not calling their friends for advice, but instead using AI... these are basically unfalsifiable. How could he possibly know that this is a thing that commonly occurs? That's right, he doesn't.

>Be sure to use AI when making your next, I don’t know, meal plan, for example. Definitely do not call your friend who loves to cook and ask her for her favorite recipes or tips or ways to save time making meals

I don't know about you, but if a friend were to call me for meal prep advice, I'd honestly be worried that they're having some sort of crisis and just need to talk to someone.

>Definitely do not text your friend who has fly-fished every river in Pennsylvania and biked every backwoods trail

Personally, I consider it kind of rude to pester someone who is an expert in a subject with extremely basic questions. Yes, sometimes they wont mind and will even be glad to answer your questions, but they would probably appreciate that you took the time to do research and aren't just using them as human Google search. The more genuine way to reach out to this person would be to learn as much about the subject as you can, and ask them to sanity check what you've learned. This is a much more considerate way to go about things.

>Be sure to use AI

>and while you do I’ll be over here in my 50th

>year, my youngest daughter asleep on my chest,

>my arm falling asleep because I dare not move

>lest I scare away this moment,

What? Does using AI disqualify you from having this experience? This post is so ridiculous man.

[happytoexplain]

You're reacting to a very level, honest examination of what we lose with AI by insulting and berating and inventing other scenarios. You're exemplifying both the thing you are accusing the author of, and also the thing that the author is lamenting.

[Brendinooo]

But it's not really an examination of what we lost with AI as all. Nor is it "level" - we can disagree on interpretations but it's very obviously written to be emotionally charged. You even called it a lamentation!

Like the person you replied to said, AI doesn't prevent you from holding your napping daughter. And most people who need a recipe would have used the Internet, and then recipe books in the pre-AI era. Plenty of people who ask Claude about fly fishing probably would have gone to Google or Reddit, or maybe even the library.