It matters as its not about a vague notion of a "level of quality". It's about reading about a personal experience written by an actual person. It's about not insulting the intelligence of one's readers by throwing up a wall of LLM-text and signing oneself, it's about not being intellectually and morally dishonest by kinda mentioning it, but only half-way through the text. The comparison with Spielberg is almost there, but not there yet, as the director does whatever it is the directors do - not outsourcing it to some "Kiro". The right comparison would have been if the AI created the next sequel of E.T., Gremlins or whatever it was that Spielberg became famous for. Who cares? I want new and genuine insights that only another human can create. Not the results of a machine minimising the statistical regression error in order to produce the 100th similar piece of "content" that I have already seen the first 99 times. I have a feeling that none of the ghouls pushing for the AI-generated "content" have ever tryly enjoyed the arts, whether 'popular' or 'noble'. Its about learning something about yourself and the world, trying to graps the author's struggles during the creation. Not about mindless consumption. That's why it matters.

▲

StableAlkyne 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> It's about reading about a personal experience written by an actual person

This seems to be the dividing line in the AI writing debate.

If one cares about the interpersonal connection formed with the author, generally they seem to strongly dislike machine-generated content.

If one cares about the content in isolation, then generally the perceived quality is more important than authorship. "The author is dead" and all that.

Both points are valid IMO. It's okay to dislike things, and it's okay to enjoy things.

> I want new and genuine insights that only another human can create.

This is a good illustration of what I mean: you personally value the connection with the author, and you can't get a human connection when there was never a human to begin with.

If you take a look at the others in the thread who had a positive view of the work, they generally focused on the content instead.

	▲	Veen 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's more that a human author has had an experience and writes to communicate it to other people. They have objectives that make sense in human contexts. They have learned things, run into issues, solved problems, developed arguments, evolved their understanding, felt emotions, considered and rejected actions, and integrated those recent experiences into a lifetime of experience. Then they order and condense all of that into a form that communicates it effectively to other experiencing beings. LLMs, in contrast, experience nothing. When they "write", they are not even vaguely approximating what a human writer does.

▲

sokoloff 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I want new and genuine insights that only another human can create.

I’m not sure that’s true in an iron-clad, first-principles way. I think that many of the insights created by humans are combinations/integrations of existing concepts. That category of insight does not seem to require carbon-based reasoning.

I don’t claim that it can be achieved by statistical text generation, but I doubt the typical blog author is creating something that forever will be human-only.

	▲	hansmayer a day ago \| parent [-]
		Who knows, perhaps you're right? But in the meanwhile, I don't want a Kiro sharing with me fake experiences a Kiro never had.