|
| ▲ | Tanoc 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Exactly, they aren't good at creating new material. But many discussions in comment section are simply regurgitations of existing material, which they are good at rearranging. New novel discussions in places like this are actually a very rare thing, as many comment sections are simply people who already know informing those who don't. I'm doing that right now, funnily enough. |
|
| ▲ | romanhn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Neither are most humans |
| |
|
| ▲ | dwringer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is rather moving the goalposts from "plausibly human comment" to "meaningful literature", I think |
| |
| ▲ | cactusplant7374 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | No. I'm drawing it out to its logical conclusion. | | |
| ▲ | mr_toad an hour ago | parent [-] | | It’s poor logic, a non sequitur. An absurd reduction. By your argument anyone who hasn’t written a great literary work is a poor writer, and would be bad at writing online comments. LLMs aren’t lacking in the sort of writing skills that make for superficially good content. They know grammar, they know rhetoric, and they know their audience. You can’t tell them from a human on their writing skills. Where they tend to fall down is their logic and reasoning skills, and unfortunately it seems you can’t use that to distinguish them from the average online opinionator either. | | |
| ▲ | cactusplant7374 an hour ago | parent [-] | | No, that is a mischaracterization of what I wrote. They are great writers if you enjoy formulaic writing. |
|
|
|
