← Back to context

Comment by JimDabell

1 hour ago

> If you can't spend the time to write it, why should anyone read it?

This isn’t your thought; you are merely regurgitating a sentence we have all heard many times before, practically word for word.

Presumably you think there is value in posting yet another copy of that other person’s thoughts in this discussion, despite having spent no time or effort in thinking it up yourself.

Why is that? Is it because you think there is inherent value in the sentence you transcribed, in spite of the near zero effort you spent creating it? If you think anybody here should read it, then you have undermined your own point. If you don’t think anybody should read it, then you shouldn’t post it.

How do you know it's not his/her thought? Just because others have had it does not mean he/she did not put effort into considering it.

> despite having spent no time or effort in thinking it up yourself.

I mean, how can you say that he didn't think it himself? I thought this same thing and realised apparently I'm not the first. You have no idea how many of my blog posts ideas have come in HN first before I could publish. People can have the same thoughts. And have em all the time as well.

Psss.. See how @sm-silversight who commented on your post said the same thing I did? That's realtime example right there.

Coming back to the topic at hand. I agree with the OP. If you don't care to write it, why should anyone read it? AI has good usecases. But am not sure writing is one.

Writing is not just about the end result. It's also about the thought process. I learn about the topic more as I write. I correct my incorrect understandings as I write. When am pissed, my article has a different tone. Am rude, too direct. When am content/happy, different one. All of this is sterilised into something robotic where the author won't even remember what he/she wrote? What's the to like? For brownie points?

  • Selecting between alternatives is also a very valuable skill. Also known as "taste".

    You are a senior software architect, you "prompt" 10 junior architects to write a software architecture proposal and then pick one which you send the client.

    Would you say it's worthless, because the senior architect didn't care to write it?

    There are plenty of industries where "taste" is a real job.

    Or you think that for some reason prompting a LLM and forwarding it's output after vetting is different than prompting a human and forwarding the output after vetting.

OK, how about 'nothing is real, nobody will ever care again, let's all never listen to anybody else ever again'?

That's more or less the same thing expressed more nihilistically. But nihilism is, like, just a word man (to 'The Dude' it up a bit). Perhaps we are either fiddling on the deck of the Titanic, or just staring at the waves?

What do you think the results will be of the machines consuming only their own slop and Habsburging themselves intellectually, and then all the humans abandoning any attempt to either talk or listen? As a global civilization of humans? I'm not sure we've explored the likely consequences of 'if you can't spend them time to write it why should anyone read it'.

Maybe it's gone too far already.