[the_af]

> So do not let AI write your speeches. But do use it to push yourself harder.

Isn't the point of the poem that you should, instead, ask a human? You'll get sidetracked and drawn into unrelated conversations, sure, but that's what it means to be human. Trying to optimize these distractions away means you deprive yourself from human interactions. And why optimize anyway, what's the end goal?

That's my take from the poem, anyway.

[btilly]

The AI is available when humans aren't. We should not reduce how much we talk to humans. But we should not avoid using AI where it makes sense.

As for why optimize, we should each decide what we care about, then optimize for that. I have personal reasons why I want to be a better speaker. Why I want to be able to stand in front of people, and have them connect with things that I care about. So it likely makes more sense for me to optimize building that skill, than for most.

You probably want to optimize on something else.

[the_af]

> The AI is available when humans aren't

Why do you need it to be available now (for varying values of "now")? Why the urgency? What did you do before AI existed?

And why did you decide the AI makes you a better speaker than talking and getting feedback from your fellow humans?

I think this is also what TFP (The Fine Poem) is about. Why the rush? I get wanting to become a better speaker, that's also part of being human, but why do you need to rush it with AI? Where are you going that you need to get there so fast, and taking shortcuts? This is what I meant by "optimizing".

It seems to me a sort of "productivity death cult". Productivity for what?

[btilly]

> And why did you decide the AI makes you a better speaker than talking and getting feedback from your fellow humans?

You've just demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension. The choice that I made wasn't humans, OR AI. It was humans, OR humans+AI. All else being equal, more feedback is better.

> It seems to me a sort of "productivity death cult". Productivity for what?

Are you having a discussion with me, or a strawman that you're projecting onto me? Right now it looks like you're debating a strawman. Who doesn't look anything like me.

I said that I had personal reasons to become better at connecting with an audience. A big source of those personal reasons is that I and my family have been through a mental health nightmare since COVID. I've learned a lot from the experience that I'd like to be able to talk about.

To give but one example, what I've shared with my local Toastmasters club has helped it become both the largest, and the fastest growing, community Toastmasters club in Orange County. People are joining because we're really good at helping them overcome social anxiety.

I care about helping people. I'd like to be able to help more than just the few dozen people that I've talked to already.

Do you really think that my desire to have a positive impact in more lives makes me part of a "productivity death cult"? If so, then we're going to have to disagree on what makes something a productivity death cult.

My position is this. Each of us should figure out what we really care about. (In healthy humans, human connection tends to be a big part of that.) After figuring out that, we should set priorities for ourselves. To the extent that AI is honestly helpful, we should use AI.

[the_af]

> You've just demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension

Why are you escalating this? I didn't personally attack you or question your comprehension, I'm challenging some of what you said. Not even all.

> Are you having a discussion with me, or a strawman that you're projecting onto me? Right now it looks like you're debating a strawman. Who doesn't look anything like me.

Not a strawman. I'm addressing a broader context than just you, while relating it to what you said about the AI being "available" when humans weren't. I didn't mean to imply you personally were engaged in a productivity cult, and if I came across that way, I apologize. (Don't tell me you haven't seen the productivity obsession being brought up frequently on HN, either criticizing it or embracing it)

> A big source of those personal reasons is that I and my family have been through a mental health nightmare since COVID. I've learned a lot from the experience that I'd like to be able to talk about.

None of this was in your initial comment, how could I guess? This is additional context that does, indeed, change some of our conversation.

> To the extent that AI is honestly helpful, we should use AI

Yes, but let's be honest about what "helpful" means here, and to what end. Perfecting a speech (or helping you perfect it) doesn't seem to me a particularly necessary use of AI. That's essentially what TFA (poem) is about.

[btilly]

> Why are you escalating this? I didn't personally attack you or question your comprehension, I'm challenging some of what you said.

On personal attacks, you literally said that it looked to you like I am part of a productivity death cult. How was that not you attacking first?

Moving on, What you challenged was not what I said. It was a misunderstanding of what I said. A misunderstanding that is directly contradicted by what I DID say.

To verify, re-read the thread. Note where I first said that we should not reduce human interactions. And then realize that if we're not reducing human interactions, we're certainly not replacing human interactions with AI interactions.

> Not a strawman. I'm addressing a broader context than just you, while relating it to what you said about the AI being "available" when humans weren't.

In other words what you had to say should have been addressed to some other group, for some other reason.

Meanwhile, what I said is true. I have a number of people I get feedback from. I value it. They're there for me, I'm there for them. But if I want an extra 5 rounds of feedback, I'll feel guilty for disrupting my friend that much. I won't feel guilty after asking that from an AI. And unless a friend is in crisis, I wouldn't be happy with a friend who regularly demanded that much from me.

AI connections are not as meaningful. But they are definitely more available.

> None of this was in your initial comment, how could I guess? This is additional context that does, indeed, change some of our conversation.

Bullshit.

I said up front that I have personal reasons for wanting to be a better speaker. The default assumption when someone says that they have personal reasons for something, should be that they have personal reasons for it. And that their reasons are at the very least meaningful to them.

You didn't. You assumed the worst of me. You then misread me to be worse still. And then were confrontational about it. And now are standing on, "Who me? How could I have guessed at all that?"

> Yes, but let's be honest about what "helpful" means here, and to what end. Perfecting a speech (or helping you perfect it) doesn't seem to me a particularly necessary use of AI.

Since you've been honest, I'll be honest back. If you gave a shit, you'd know what my goal is. It isn't perfecting any given speech. You'd also know why it is important to me. And if that isn't enough in your books to justify what I'm using AI for, then I'll ignore your opinions on the matter.

[the_af]

You seem very defensive and angry, I have zero interest in discussing anything in that tone.

[runarberg]

That was what I was thinking when the conversation went to Derek of Veritasium. This poem was centered around humanity and our shared experiences as humans. Derek is consistently obsessed with technology, and will center every conversation around how technology will enhance the human experience (by which he probably means capitalism to be honest).

Taking the conversation to Derek of Veritasium feels like after having watched Koyaanisqatsi your mind goes to James Burke and how the invention of the plow has improved how we experience human society.

[btilly]

If that is what you think of Derek, then you really don't understand Derek.

The video that I linked to is over an hour on why new technologies never transform education. He has a number of videos that critique what capitalism has lead big industries to. For example he has one on Monsanto's war on farming, another on how forever chemicals are poisoning us, and a third on how short-sightedness on protecting the health of rubber trees could be an existential threat to civilization.

Your model of him says that he should have done none of those things. The fact that he did is strong evidence that you've got a cardboard cutout that you're using as a strawman. Because it's a convenient punching bag. And not because it matches a real human very well.

[runarberg]

James Burke would also criticize technology. But compared to Koyaanisqatsi James Burke’s critiques feel very tame indeed. While James Burke would critique bad implementations of technology, or point at a place where technology was detrimental, Koyaanisqatsi would say: “humanity has lost its way in pursuit of technology”.

Reading this poem I saw a similar critique of AI as Koyaanisqatsi critiqued technology. And any advocate of this technology for whichever purpose, even the ones who occupationally critique some aspect of it, feel very tame in comparison, and off the mark.

I put my views of Derik in parentheses on purpose. I wanted to share my bias towards him, while also saying: “This is besides the point”.

[btilly]

It's clear that you're discussing this from an ideological bias that I do not share.

I see no reason to engage further in your assertions about what content is worthwhile.

[runarberg]

We are debating a piece of art, having different interpretation is perfectly normal.