I'm curious about other possibilities, like how we can incorporate AI to produce higher quality content, more quickly. Or more accurately. Bosses at work seem to assume that the way AI would benefit us to speed things up by some integer factor, and I kept explaining that tools like AI can provide benefits that don't appear in the "speed" dimension, per se.
One example is we can now vibe-out multiple potential ways for a feature to work, and actually play with them all over the course of an afternoon to help decide which one works best, and then actually code that particular approach for production.
I think the piece would be stronger if it explicitly explored ways to use AI in the authoring process that brought other benefits. As they note near the end of the article:
> It’s not going to be easy, because competitor publications are going to be able to produce immense quantities of writing in the time we are painstakingly correcting and adjusting a single article.
Right, it's fairly easy to generate a bunch of crap with AI. But what about having the AI critique your first drafts, or find flaws in the logic presented in an argument. I hope that writers work with AI in a sort of "rubber duck"/"sounding board" fashion, but it's hard to tell how they are actually working. The current front seems to be a hot debate about whether text was AI generated, but there's a lot to AI methodology beyond just that.
Making a declaration that you are rejecting AI can come across as implying use of AI is a moral failing. There are certainly people who overtly claim it is a moral failing.
I think the people who are offended are perceiving this as as statement impugning their character.
The reasoning you describe seems somewhat self centered.
I'm not sure I want to worry too much about people who go through life assuming everyone else's statements are a direct commentary about themselves.
Would you think it reasonable for a mens health magazine to choose to not feature obese people on the cover?
But on the other hand,
Would you think it reasonable for people to feel singled out when they choose to make a public declaration that they will never put an obese person on the cover?
Being obese or saying "thin only" is not the same as "no ai content".
For producing content... yes. yes it is.
How dare you expect to vomit into the street and expect me to treat it like flowers.
This trend in other areas of life is becoming boring and tiring.
The double think is astounding.
They are offended by your vitriol and the tone that suggests the claim is indisputable.
There is no double think there.
There's nothing moral about using AI to replace the same artists whose work was used to train it.
Unemployment in hundreds of millions globally? Loss of part that makes us humans in many creative aspects? People getting visibly and measurably dumber and lazier, including top performers?
Absolutely 0 solutions, nobody cares. People here on HN often just think its not their problem, they can cash those bonuses and rest of mankind can go fuck themselves and serve them for near nothing, being on top /near top of the pile is the ultimate goal. At least this seems to be unspoken part of many llm discussions here. Pathetic. It seems this is way more typical mindset in US compared to say in Europe and tells a few things about current US society, but nothing nice.
We are losing a significant part of our humanity if llms really deliver on their promise and not just crash global economy big time which on its own is huge problem. People steering this are mostly typical high functioning sociopaths like altman focused on money and power, so dont expect those to care.
So yeah, there are concerns to say the least, not everybody operates on autistic narrow tube view of the world as themselves and thats it. Some of us have kids too.
These folks will need some serious deprogramming in a few years.
Sure, AI can generate slop at a very high rate, but it can also help writers reformulate a text or act as a proofreader. The editor's choices matter, as do the result and the audience's taste.
However, lately, there has been growing AI fatigue, and people are probably becoming willing to pay more if they can be sure that there's "No AI inside" (something like "No palm oil inside"). If people are willing to pay for it, we'll see.
Personally, on my blog, which I moved away from Blogger and which has been deindexed by Google, I have the same statement: 100% handwritten (with a disclaimer that I am not responsable for crawler hallucination). Why? First, because writing is really the fun part. I make better editorial choices when I write the text directly. Second, there's the audience. On my blog, over 90% of the audience consists of bots and crawlers. They need handwritten stuff, and if this audience grows, it probably means they like those posts.
In the end, the funny part is analyzing my text with LLMs after a post is published. The result is surprises and more ideas. If I ever ask what I need to change to make the text sound more human, the response is usually that I have to add more slop. That's the part I leave out.
It’s not about being better or worse.
Anyone can sling LLM generated text around, it’s boring and uninteresting.