I don't understand. Even if this post is long and has some repetitive parts, isn't it still written by a human? There are way too many comments acting like everything is bad just because one animation widget was made with AI.

I actually like this post. It looks good, the explanations are clear, and the AI-generated animation widget actually helps me understand things. What's the problem exactly? Is using AI for visualization considered a bad practice?

▲

orc00 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree.

As someone who spends their own time developing open-educational resources (OER), I was extremely limited in what I could do pre-AI. Now, AI has supercharged my ability to elevate my work in ways I could have never done before, particularly in visualizations, interactive widgets, and even images (often SVG for me), all of which are necessary components to the resources I've been developing online since 2020 (COVID-era).

Given that my programming abilities are very limited as well as my time, AI has allowed me to develop the missing pieces to much of what I was creating. When used properly (as an expert in a field using AI as a tool), the end product can be completely transformed and elevated in ways that could never have been. I am so thankful that AI came along just at the right time for me to do the things I could have never accomplished before.

▲

blooalien 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> What's the problem exactly? Is using AI for visualization considered a bad practice?

Some people just assume that anything "AI" has touched is automatically "slop" because ... AI! Probably at least partly due to how much actual "AI slop" is out there produced by people "holding the tool wrong". When used judiciously and properly, some of these language models can really be a useful tool and help create some quality stuff, but they're no substitute for a knowledgable human using the tool correctly to achieve the desired result (which is why so many people who misuse it to do all their thinking and work for them (without doing any of their part) inevitably produce the typical "slop" result).

▲

gib444 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, when someone takes advice from a tool with a proven reputation of outputting lies and embellishments, with zero fact checking of its training data, and encourages people to use it almost no matter what, the sane and rational thing is to assume it is slop.

▲

jdw64 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Aren't you just treating people like they're too stupid? You can't catch every hallucination from AI, but there are still things you can spot. I'm a programmer too—I can tell the difference to some extent.

Honestly, I think formalism is strange. People also exaggerate and spread false information. Even famous programmers on Hacker News sometimes give incorrect programming advice. In the end, there's always some amount of misinformation in any source. You read it while cross-checking with your own knowledge. Saying that all of it is useless is just an emotional response.

Is 'rational' really about insulting others? Reason seems pretty cheap these days. Then I'll just be an emotional person

	▲	blooalien 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> In the end, there's always [at least the potential for] some amount of misinformation in any source. You read it while cross-checking with your own knowledge [and the knowledge gathered by others]. I wish they still taught this in grade-school like they did when I was a kid. Clearly research skills are not so common these days. "Common sense" is not common.