| ▲ | CuriouslyC 4 hours ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | dofm 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It is all of those things and more. Ethical: favour the notion that humans should be who we look to for writing, and that some of them are hopefully meaningfully compensated for it Political: favour the decentralisation of effort away from US cloud AI firms Practical: there's too much to read in the world; a very useful quality signal is to favour things obvious people put obvious effort into Personal: it is soul-destroying that we live in a world that suddenly devalues people and their efforts so completely. I think perhaps you are showing your own bias here. But abusing people for their chosen principles is not a business-winning strategy. |
| |
| ▲ | CuriouslyC 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | My bias is that I'm tired of people being mad at Musk/Zuckerberg/Altman/Amodei for being jerks (undisputed), and corrupt politicians allowing data centers to be put where they really shouldn't while offloading externalities onto the local population (also undisputed) and using that to attack people using a tool. Imagine if Kobalt, Craftsman and DeWalt were scummy as fuck, and a bunch of people went around on the internet shit talking anyone who used power tools, and calling anything they built with them trash. That's the reality we're in now. |
|
|
| ▲ | inigyou 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's actually practical advice to avoid wasting your time on nonsense. |
| |
| ▲ | CuriouslyC 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Plot twist, 100% likely you've read and shared humanized AI content. If you read the summary/abstract and nope out because there's nothing interesting or insightful, whatever, but if you were interested in subject of the article and its assertions and you nope out because of an AI writing tic, that's just toolish. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Plot twist, applying practical advice to avoid wasting time doesn't mean that you never waste time. | |
| ▲ | sodapopcan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Plot twist, 100% likely you've read and shared humanized AI content. I'm sure this has happened. If the author can speak with authority about everything that has written, then ya, I have to concede that is fine. It's obviously the most true when you are going to be engaging with the author. If you ask them a question and they respond, "I'm no sure, the LLM wrote it," that is a huge problem (and pretty pathetic, I might add). > but if you were interested in subject of the article and its assertions and you nope out because of an AI writing tic, that's just toolish. Meh, it I can find another article on the same subject written by a person then it's not too toolish. I've never liked this argument. It's the same thing with music. Even if I like a piece of music, and then I find out it's AI, I'm not going to listen to it. I can understand why people think this is stupid, but there is SO much music--even before it exponentially exploded with AI--that I can find something else I really like created by a person. Especially since when something really tickles my fancy, I like to read everything I can about the artist (which is an indirect form of engagement). | |
| ▲ | tempfile 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | AI writing tics usually also make text hard to read. I figure you mean "tics which don't affect the readability" but these are pretty rare. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | sodapopcan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| LOL, TF are you talking about? It's neither a political nor ethical, it's practical. It's about not wasting your previous time on earth reading garbage the author doesn't understand themselves. |
| |
| ▲ | orangedog 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is posting on HN really that much of a superior way to spend precious time on earth? That's why I don't take this too seriously, at the end of the day you're complaining about time that you're probably wasting online and getting mad at the author for potentially saving time, too. Does generating images mean you don't understand what you're writing about? | | |
| ▲ | sodapopcan 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | My time spent commenting on HN is decompressing time, engaging with (hopefully) humans. Committing to reading a blog post or article is a whole other category. |
| |
| ▲ | CuriouslyC 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | j_maffe 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If not, congrats, you're on the same intellectual level as a racist. I remember HN comments used to be of higher quality than this. | |
| ▲ | sodapopcan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh ffs, I knew it was a mistake to engage with you but couldn't help myself. Have fun. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | SkyBelow 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't agree, especially for this argument. I'm a major AI user. Coding? Sure. But language learning, some art projects, TTRPG design. I'm so far 'lost' that I have a number of AI songs on my YouTube play list. For the anti-AI people, I'm like a walking abomination. Yet despite all this, I still am a firm believer in "if you couldn't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it" as a default stance. I feel human to human communication should remain human to human. If AI is involved, the extent should be limited to where the human to human communication couldn't be achieved otherwise and fully disclosed. Someone might even say I'm a bit of a hypocrite. Why do I like listening to an AI song but not reading an AI blog. Honestly, I'm not sure. I'm actually a bit puzzled by it myself. Regardless of the why, I think I should be an example of someone who holds this position for reasons entirely different than those you suggest. I don't even disagree with you in general, a lot of AI discourse does seem to have bad faith arguments put forward and I do tire of some of them. But this specific one is one of the more few that seem good faith enough we should steelman it. |
|
| ▲ | cpburns2009 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's a useful heuristic. There's a good chance it's just nonsense rather than interesting information that was AI edited. Just give me your prompt. I'd rather read the raw prompt than the grandiose slop output. It's way to verbose, and enumerates every useless microscopic detail, real and imagined. |
| |
| ▲ | CuriouslyC 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | byronturncoat 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Refusing to read AI slop is one logical shade from racism? Not only do you seem to misunderstand "logic", you also seem to misunderstand "racism". I have to believe that this is an attempt to be sensationalist, because I cannot possibly fathom someone actually believing this in good faith. Refusing to read low-effort output of an LLM, a piece of software, on principle and the belief in the inferiority of humans are very far afield. | |
| ▲ | cpburns2009 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's more of just another red flag. If you're speaking a lot without saying anything useful, I'll drop out. This isn't exclusive to AI content but it exacerbates it. Not wanting to read AI slop is now essentially racism? Lol, whatever dude. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mrtesthah 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It’s not political. You disrespect me by insisting I spend my personal time and attention on something you couldn’t be assed to do on your own. You clearly think you’re above me and that your attention is worth more than mine. |
| |
| ▲ | orangedog 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | They're creating for you. They don't owe you anything, they presumably don't have the same feelings about using generated content as you do. |
|
