| ▲ | tzs 6 hours ago | |
> I would still say no, there is something about finding the words for yourself, even if they aren't as elegant as an Ai can make. It's fine, most humans prefer imperfection. In this instance the only reason I considered using the AI summary was that there was no Wikipedia article about the case (which surprised me as it is one of the foundational cases in Commerce Clause law...although maybe all the points in it are covered in later cases that do get their own Wikipedia articles?). Normally I'd just copy Wikipedia's summary into my comment and link to Wikipedia and to the decision itself for people that want the details. > The point is we don't want to read Ai summaries, we can make one ourselves if we want. How would you know if you wanted one? Someone mentioned they would like to see a case on this subject but they didn't think it would ever happen. I knew of a case on the subject, found the reference, and posted the link. At that point we are already on a tangent from what most of the thread is about and from what most people reading it care about. The point of the summary would be to let you know if the case might actually be relevant to anything you cared about in the thread. (The answer would probably be "no" for 95+% of the people reading the comment). | ||
| ▲ | verdverm 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |
I have some peer comments that temper and add color to my opinions on this All of this Ai stuff is new for society and we have a lot to work through. Here on HN, we want to err to the side of keeping as much humanity as possible. It's good to have a place like that, for fresh air and stretching our minds differently and regularly as Ai becomes more ubiquitous in our lives. | ||