There's a trend of people replying to posts/tweets/etc. with 'I asked ChatGPT and it said...'
It's the modern equivalent of LMGTFY. The OP could just as easily written the same prompt themselves. The difference is that LMGTFY was an expression of irritation, smugness and hazing. The ChatGPT reply is just garrulous laziness. I expect and hope we'll develop social rules that mean this type of reply will be seen as passe.
The last time I got one of those lazy ChatGPT responses I wanted to just ban the person on the spot if I had moderator privileges. Just pages of dreck that looked like detailed information but was totally useless and a waste of time. I don't have a problem if people use ChatGPT and find it helpful, but it's hugely disrespectful to just copy and paste its output to other people without even a cursory review of it first.
tl;dr: AI is looking to convey words. A good author is looking to efficiently convey information.
Because that's literally what it is. Its an algorithm that is continuously asking itself, 'what is the most likely word I should say next?'
Whereas an author that is intending to communicate a point, will start with an idea, write a passage to explain the idea, and then edit their passage to the minimum number of words that most precisely, accurately, and succinctly communicates that idea.
Same here, but AI is orthogonal to that. Spam is spam - there's no difference between one written by silicon-based LLM bot, and one written by protein-based low paid human bot.
This is untenable. I could be AI. You could be AI. The whole idea of value is going to change when there is 99.99% noise from AI, and genuine human created content will be hard to distinguish if at all.
1: people will use ChatGPT to write their formal emails based on a casually written text
2: people will use ChatGPT to convert their emails from formal text to summaries\
3: this will get automated by email providers
4: eventually the automation will be removed and we'll just talk in plain language again
I do #1 and it's great. I'm not sure why folks in this thread are sneering at what is a working English transpiler. I don't get to choose having to write formally at work sometimes but I can control how I deal with it.
I'll buy the AI LLM that finds the prompt that was used based on the output, and replaces posts and emails by their prompt so I can actually understand the intention of the author and not spend my whole afternoon going through all bullet points with highly redundant information.
Not that /s, really. If you think about it, what a person writing a long-winded e-mail full of redundant text is doing, is the same work LLM is - they have a prompt in their mind, and they're generating text that "sounds nice" out of it.
AI or not, it would be better if they just sent their prompt instead.
Then why did you even write more than two sentences in the first place, if nothing else matters? Why didn't you write a summary-line at the beginning, consisting of two sentences?
AI will not replace human thinking, even though many people seem to believe and put their brain on stand-by.
It feels like someone wants to transport water from A to B and transports it as steam, just because _we can _.
This is the really hilarious ‘engineer thinking’ vs ‘normie’ thinking difference which rears its head sometimes.
after all, what’s the point of a giving someone a bunch of cheap flashy gifts for Christmas (instead of say, socks) either?
As long as we can all pretend they were thoughtful and meaningful, and someone isn’t using AI when making it (or just picking random crap off the shelf, and they removed the price tags) or using AI when reading it (aka making a big show of opening it, and then throwing them in the trash immediately after the person leaves), then we all get along. It even looks like we’re doing a ton of work/spending a ton of money to make the other person happy.
Not that anyone does any of the things I’m describing, just being hypothetical, obviously.
I suspect it will be obvious enough shortly it will go the way of the ‘popcorn bucket’ fad or the like, but for now…
There's a trend of people replying to posts/tweets/etc. with 'I asked ChatGPT and it said...'
It's the modern equivalent of LMGTFY. The OP could just as easily written the same prompt themselves. The difference is that LMGTFY was an expression of irritation, smugness and hazing. The ChatGPT reply is just garrulous laziness. I expect and hope we'll develop social rules that mean this type of reply will be seen as passe.
At least a sarcastic LMGTFY got the person closer to an answer if they clicked the link. Asking ChatGPT is a dead-end.
The last time I got one of those lazy ChatGPT responses I wanted to just ban the person on the spot if I had moderator privileges. Just pages of dreck that looked like detailed information but was totally useless and a waste of time. I don't have a problem if people use ChatGPT and find it helpful, but it's hugely disrespectful to just copy and paste its output to other people without even a cursory review of it first.
Even worse is making an original post starting with 'I asked ChatGPT and it said...'
Yes, when I see something written by AI I don't read it. Its a waste of time.
That distinct feeling when reading AI is as if someone who wrote it was compelled to write more words
tl;dr: AI is looking to convey words. A good author is looking to efficiently convey information.
Because that's literally what it is. Its an algorithm that is continuously asking itself, 'what is the most likely word I should say next?'
Whereas an author that is intending to communicate a point, will start with an idea, write a passage to explain the idea, and then edit their passage to the minimum number of words that most precisely, accurately, and succinctly communicates that idea.
2 replies →
Cold emails -- especially AI generated ones -- go directly to the trash in my mailbox.
Same here, but AI is orthogonal to that. Spam is spam - there's no difference between one written by silicon-based LLM bot, and one written by protein-based low paid human bot.
This is untenable. I could be AI. You could be AI. The whole idea of value is going to change when there is 99.99% noise from AI, and genuine human created content will be hard to distinguish if at all.
My expectation is that:
1: people will use ChatGPT to write their formal emails based on a casually written text 2: people will use ChatGPT to convert their emails from formal text to summaries\ 3: this will get automated by email providers 4: eventually the automation will be removed and we'll just talk in plain language again
I do #1 and it's great. I'm not sure why folks in this thread are sneering at what is a working English transpiler. I don't get to choose having to write formally at work sometimes but I can control how I deal with it.
writing formally doesn't require using a lot of useless filler words though.
It is funny but it is genuinely a enormous waste of energy and money.
You can run it through AI to summarize it down to a sentence or two. It's like the telephone game but with computers.
I'll buy the AI LLM that finds the prompt that was used based on the output, and replaces posts and emails by their prompt so I can actually understand the intention of the author and not spend my whole afternoon going through all bullet points with highly redundant information.
/s, of course, but not that unrealistic.
Not that /s, really. If you think about it, what a person writing a long-winded e-mail full of redundant text is doing, is the same work LLM is - they have a prompt in their mind, and they're generating text that "sounds nice" out of it.
AI or not, it would be better if they just sent their prompt instead.
If you don't have the original input, how would you determine the prompt that was used to generate the output?
We’ve invented the worlds dodgiest decompression algorithms
Then why did you even write more than two sentences in the first place, if nothing else matters? Why didn't you write a summary-line at the beginning, consisting of two sentences?
AI will not replace human thinking, even though many people seem to believe and put their brain on stand-by.
It feels like someone wants to transport water from A to B and transports it as steam, just because _we can _.
This is the really hilarious ‘engineer thinking’ vs ‘normie’ thinking difference which rears its head sometimes.
after all, what’s the point of a giving someone a bunch of cheap flashy gifts for Christmas (instead of say, socks) either?
As long as we can all pretend they were thoughtful and meaningful, and someone isn’t using AI when making it (or just picking random crap off the shelf, and they removed the price tags) or using AI when reading it (aka making a big show of opening it, and then throwing them in the trash immediately after the person leaves), then we all get along. It even looks like we’re doing a ton of work/spending a ton of money to make the other person happy.
Not that anyone does any of the things I’m describing, just being hypothetical, obviously.
I suspect it will be obvious enough shortly it will go the way of the ‘popcorn bucket’ fad or the like, but for now…
8 replies →
If AI doesn’t replace human thinking, we will have to find something else that does, or just go without.