You must log in or register to comment.
Some actual good comments in this one, offset by the usual braindead morons parroting corpo propaganda
Fanboys defending their favorite game, Capitalism!
Kneejerk overcorrection to performative ingroup identity. The tech is fine. When the bubble bursts, we’ll still have the chatbot that codes, and the denoiser that renders live action. Muttering about copyright, like anyone should respect copyright, will either quietly fade, or produce vegan models from bespoke and licensed data. Those vegan models will not change anything for the bitter core who shouted loudest about it, because they’re only bolstering a reactionary conclusion. Same reason they don’t care how local models address power use. Same reason Chrome pushing a four-gig update is like burning a rainforest, but Youtube’s daily bandwidth will not be examined.
Absolutely excoriate the schmuck whose ‘AI clouds reality’ book is a brainless example of its own premise. But a Nobel laureate bouncing ideas off a hallucinating robot is already unremarkable. Cory fucking Doctorow uses one to check his posts. It’s fine. That’s what it’s for. Don’t treat it as an oracle, and don’t submit its output like you wrote it. Not even when people cannot tell, despite the highest quality standards and intense scrutiny. Granta’s uncertainty acknowledges how spicy autocomplete can already leave no trace beyond a vague suspicion. You want that capability kept out of artistic expression? Go off. But do not pretend it will simply go away.
Imagine describing what LLMs do, a decade ago. Not the Sam Altman cocaine fantasy. Their actual current functionality, warts and all. Who would be against it, on principle? Even if you go full alarmist - ‘I came back to 2016 because this is what we have to stop!’ - you’re unlikely to persuade anyone to join the Butlerian jihad, over what the chatbot is and does. They could rattle off some obvious uses, including a few we still haven’t done. It seems fine.
People nowadays are in antithesis because we’ve had this shoved at us from every angle. It’s been used to justify mass layoffs, constant surveillance, and computing restrictions. Every platform overflows with unfiltered garbage because the zaibatsus that own them are invested in the cocaine fantasy. You hate these companies and confuse this for the product.
When that all collapses - we can finally talk about the tech, in itself. About having computers at least try to do what you ask for, in plain English. About the storytelling potential of describing images into existence. About people creating the tools they need, without years of comp sci. Are there problems within all that? Of fucking course there are. You live in science fiction now. It’s gonna get less stupid, any day now, but it’s gonna stay weird.
This is neither here nor there, but I was nodding along until… I entertained the possibility that this was at least partially written by AI. Or even merely “ideas bounced off” of. Then I was just disappointed. The last few sentences were especially glaring. 🤷♂️
I wrote all this by hand.
Not sure what else to add besides “fuck you.”
I could lament another generation essentially parroting ‘this looks Photoshopped!’ in the complete absence of evidence. Part of your brain wants to feel terribly clever, and once you’re in that mode, you’re only seeking confirmation. It’s no longer a rational process. But explaining that failure will almost certainly be met with another empty dismissal, because the nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer. You can rock up three weeks late to insult me on the basis of ‘but what if,’ despite claiming to agree with the actual point, and I’m not sure there’s any combination of words you’d even entertain. Hence the initial addition.
I’d be thrilled if you proved me wrong.
If you read what I wrote closely, there is no actual accusation nor need to impute any hostility. Charitably read, I was merely pointing out the uncanny and disappointing correlation, and with a stretch, some of the obvious downsides to you personally of the proliferation of LLM generated text. And, now assuming it does need to be pointed out, disappointment is wholly mine and not your problem. But hey, some people can’t read anything without making it all about them. There’s a neologism for this, ya? Something something character syndrome?
Assuming you recognize that’s a deep character flaw and something to work on, maybe reflect on the real issues instead of kneejerk defensive reactions to, lol, ambiguous comments from strangers, literally to something “neither here nor there.” I wasn’t insulting you because I don’t give a shit about anyone enough to insult them. I’m very, very sorry for pricking your ego though. Consider sprinkling more eggshells around so strangers know to give it a wide berth. 👍
(Surely even you can recognize now some differences with what I wrote, which can be much more reasonably deemed an insult.)
Tldr I’m not the enemy lol. Your vaunted rose-tinted saviour is. That and the ones you imagine in your head and want to be real… or at least deemably “rational.”
‘It’s not the accusation it sounds like, I’m just vagueposting the insinuation.’ Honey, that’s not better. Nor is ‘I’m above petty insults, you fragile egomaniac.’ It’s not playful irony if you plainly believe it.
And you did make the accusation. “The last few sentences were especially glaring” is a conclusion. Even ‘especially suspicious’ would be talking shit about my writing, to me. Not in any concrete or constructive way - just ‘I experienced a thought about you, mmm bad look, anyway byyye.’
You can’t tell me ‘I’m disappointed about you’ and then sneer like I made it about me.
Your vaunted rose-tinted saviour is.
Should I bother asking who the fuck you’re talking about? Is it worth another fluff-job from someone who thinks they’re being detached and clever?
