All their responses are generated, no conscience there, just AI. "Another brick in the wall" hits stronger than ever now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -12 points 4 hours ago (7 children)

I have heard lots of stupid things, and this is in the top ten indeed.

The first stupiditt is that people who use AI,.don't use it all the time. So no not all their respondes are generated.

The second stupidity is that using AI means they use it to generate responses. Maybe they only use it to gather information or automate work tasks.

And the third stupidity is that using AI means you don't also use your brain, thus "no conscience".

Applying the same logic, people who read books are NPCs too because all their responses are generated, no conscience there, just sentences taken from books.

/s just in case (referring to books)

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 hours ago (6 children)

    Tell me you've never read a book without telling me. When you read books your brain starts to produce images, scenes and new thought processes depending on what you read. That is not how I would describe copy-pasting AI output

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 hour ago (5 children)

    As much as it pains me to carry water for AI, do you think that people are replacing things they liked to do with AI?

    Like... They were reading for pleasure, and then they had the AI read it for them instead?
    That they were talking to their friends they enjoy speaking with, and then they had the AI talk to their friends instead?

    Or are you saying that what you describe is the experience that you get from reading technical manuals for your work? For reading warning labels? From talking with coworkers you dislike?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 hour ago (4 children)

    If you use AI instead of reading warning labels, please get the fuck out of whatever job you're doing. You'll save countless lives, first of all your own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

    If that's what you thought that I said, then you have no right to judge people on their lack of intelligence or literacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (2 children)

    Yes, that's what I thought you said, because that's what you said. If you've somehow said something opposite from what you meant, that's on you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 57 minutes ago (1 child)

    And show me where I said people were using AI to read it.

    Because I was describing the class of reading material which is dry and unimaginative, to contrast your description of what reading does to peoples minds.

    I was describing two classes of data: the kind that fit what your describe, and therefore people don't actually use AI on it, and dry technical data that doesn't grant the benefits you describe. I did not say if people use AI on the technical material, only that they don't use it with the enjoyable material.

    So no, I didn't say that, and if you read it as carefully a you seem to expect everyone else but you too, then you'd have just shut up instead of doubling down embarrassingly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 minutes ago*

    You've put it in the same list of things people dislike, along with talking to coworkers they don't like. Right after making a point of people using AI for things they don't like to do. Maybe you should ask the AI that generates your comments to try better.

    Ah, yeah, if we're playing the game of nitpick: show me where I claimed people were using AI to read warning labels? My first response to you started with "if". At no point did I assert that as a fact or even assumption. But since you took it so personally, I might have hit too close to home?

  • source
  • parent