Comment by Planktonne
19 hours ago
I would a thousand times rather read your stream of consciousness, even though I disagree with it, than the bland pulp of the LLM output. In every way that matters, it's stronger and communicating far more.
I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages.
You say this, but it's likely a lie. Maybe not for you, but for every N people like you that say it, a high percentage of them are lying. There's research on people's preference for AI generated content over human content when the provenance of the content is blind, which flips on its head when provenance is not blind. The truth is the actual "art" never mattered, most people are living in Plato's cave and they're scraping and clawing for some shred of identity and sense of belonging, and being part of the anti-AI clique gives them that. That's how we get things like Jackson Pollock and bananas duct-taped to cardboard being held up as some kind of achievement.
> people's preference for AI generated content over human content when the provenance of the content is blind, which flips on its head when provenance is not blind
I don't think this shows what you think it shows. AI output (in short clumps) looks like human output; it's designed to do that. Naturally people will sometimes prefer it to other stuff that looks like human output, but crucially this shifts when they realise they're not actually being communicated with.
> this shifts when they realise
I think this is pretty much is what they were saying about the provenance being blind. If you are able to deduce the LLM usage through the long-form text then that removes the blindness and objectivity.
I wonder if you view adversarially humanised LLM-generated content in the same light as that which hasn't been obfuscated. I recall seeing some paper with examples posted here a few months ago, where I (and the participants in the study) literally couldn't tell the difference between them and human writing. I have considered using humanisation myself but there is both less control over the output and it (obviously) loses the LLM-like structure that I find so easy to read - and is therefore antithesis to my own objectives.
> I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages.
Straw man. That literally wasn't what you said. You dismissed what I wrote as thoughtless. It wasn't about disagreement it was purely invalidation.
I think you're conflating a couple of different things here.
1. I do disagree with your position in both the prompt and the output; I don't think you're correct. That doesn't mean I don't think you're worth talking to.
2. I do think the output was thoughtless; there is thought evident in the prompt, but then you passed it through a blandifying filter that took it out. You made your contribution less valuable and less valid, removing intention. That's thoughtless.
You do not need a filter; it does not make your writing better, it makes it more pallid.
I had 3 main positions - are you disagreeing with them all? You have not directly engaged with any of them.
You are now saying that the OUTPUT was thoughtless, whereas before you said that "I" had not put meaningful thought into it. Those are different claims.
As for the output, I regenerated it until I was happy that it communicated my position effectively. That in itself requires both thought and intention.
You may prefer my unedited prose, but your preference doesn't make either my input or my editorial choices thoughtless.
4 replies →