[flagged]
All they’re saying is that they want to make sure the finalized articles are handwritten and aren't chockful of LLM slophistry. They even mention in this very article that they’re not against writers using AI-space adjacent tools to do preliminary research.
This seems like a pretty reasonable perspective for a magazine. Use AI for ideation and research but not to create the final version of articles for publication.
I just don't want to read AI articles/books/etc, it is a waste of my time on earth.
That doesn't mean I won't use AI, when I specifically ask, like finding answers.
If yes: why? If no: why?
- would you like to chat with an AI?
- would you like to have sex with an AI bot?
- would you like to read an AI generated story?
What do you find meaningful about your time on earth? If your experience is more AI-generated, is it still meaningful?
What makes you so certain it's inevitable?
In fact it probably only solves a minority of them.
I don't think it's fair to say the narrative sucks unless you know exactly which problems they were concerned about.
For example, this raises the issue of a drop in quality and a change in publishing model - which is obviously quite different than parroting back an existing argument and saying its bad like you are suggesting.
> Even if you lost 60 percent of your readership, you might still make a lot more per story, because you can pump them out in seconds.
Their parent comment did¹, as did the parent to that one² (i.e. you, who used the word “metric” twice), which is the top of the chain. So, in essence, everyone in the immediate conversation “said metrics”.
> Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is empty
That’s not what they did at all. You’re choosing that interpretation, you can choose a kinder one.
But you initially said:
> Implying that anyone who disagrees with you
That’s what I think is incorrect about your interpretation. “The majority of people in this field” and “anyone who disagrees with me” are wildly different statements. When they say “most tech people”, that could even include themselves¹ or close friends and family². Because crucially, none of us is one single thing, and we’re not a single thing all the time. Like, you can have an uncle who you feel is unimaginative and old-fashioned and crude but that you still believe tries to be a good person even if you disagree with them on how to go about it.
That’s what I mean when I say you could choose a kinder interpretation. And hey, I’m not perfect either, I have had my fair share of misinterpretations. But that’s exactly why I’m saying this to you right now, in the end we should help each other to come back to kindness. Maybe the person you responded to was trying to be rude, but I think there’s enough leeway to believe they were not, and that you can be happier if you take the comment in the best way.
Have a nice weekend. Genuinely.
¹ Sure, unlikely, though not impossible.
² Not that unlikely anymore.
You are a good AI, but maybe you should update your context window.
> I don't like vanilla ice cream
> Ok well prove it then!
Fort them I think it makes sense.
And I'm pro AI.
FYI this is written by someone who's fairly bullish on AI and uses it pretty frequently on a daily basis.
If that's what you took from the article, perhaps AI writing is just the thing for you.
I recall a classic photo of a meeting in Nazi Germany where one single man didn’t stand up to applaud Hitler.
It doesn’t matter if you win right now. It matters not to betray yourself.
In my opinion, the AI companies’ openly stated desire to eliminate any reason to live for hundreds of millions of people is something very Nazi in its nature.
What you're now saying is that it's a by-product of what they do. What you said earlier was that it was their goal.
Which is it?