One of the most painful arguments I keep having with fellow techies is the question of whether you can distinguish between human-written and AI-generated text.
A food processor is also an important tool in a chef's arsenal, as it saves a lot of manual labor and even allows you to make things that wouldn't be as good if you had to chop them by hand. Also, not every meal needs to be julienned, just because you bought the machine. Both can be true.
I get more worked up about AI written stuff than I probably should. Especially at work where it feels like I’m reading/reviewing stuff that is 100% artisanal “it’s pee - not poo” style negative parallelisms among other things. Sucked the joy out of what used to be a rewarding exercise in understanding the mental model that someone has for a thing.
Discussing AI writing with a friend recently, I came up with 3 points that can be applied to virtually all AI use situations - 1) we need to remind people who ask AI to do the entire task that this behavior pretty much guarantees that they will be the first person replaced by AI, 2) AI is a tool as much as a piece of heavy equipment or a doctor's scalpel and equally dangerous, and we absolutely need to decide how to train and certify people to use AI properly, and 3) perhaps more realistic pricing on AI use will encourage people to use it more intelligently.
I still don't think we need AI, but it is here, so let's try to use it better.
As I like to say, the only jobs AI can take are those jobs that could be done by trained chimpanzees - and since those jobs are currently being done by trained chimpanzees - which is what humans basically are - then if you want to keep your job it behooves one to stop acting like a trained chimpanzee.
Except doing "jobs" for corporations - i.e. acting like a peasant in the feudal era - IS behaving like a trained chimpanzee.
Stop being an employee and start being an independent contractor paid for results instead of time and with control over your own work.
Some postscripts:
1) Beware of the "why" inflation: https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/blog/why100k2.jpg
2) No, it's not just this title: https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/blog/whys-vale.jpg
3) Yes, covers aside, these books are about what you'd expect: https://lcamtuf.substack.com/p/ai-childrens-books-body-horror-edition
4) Someone on Mastodon pointed out that the title is probably coming from the following 1929 book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Hundred_Thousand_Whys - apparently largely unknown in the West, but popular in China.
5) Presented without comment: https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/blog/whys-make.jpg
And to the person on HN arguing that maybe these books aren't AI: my friend, you have a beautiful mind.
Oh good god this is disgusting and why I advocate not losing your voice to AI.
A food processor is also an important tool in a chef's arsenal, as it saves a lot of manual labor and even allows you to make things that wouldn't be as good if you had to chop them by hand. Also, not every meal needs to be julienned, just because you bought the machine. Both can be true.
Here's another guy you should know about [I told him too]:
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/dont-lose-your-voice?publication_id=1005334&post_id=200481113&isFreemail=true&r=4084e&triedRedirect=true
I get more worked up about AI written stuff than I probably should. Especially at work where it feels like I’m reading/reviewing stuff that is 100% artisanal “it’s pee - not poo” style negative parallelisms among other things. Sucked the joy out of what used to be a rewarding exercise in understanding the mental model that someone has for a thing.
Discussing AI writing with a friend recently, I came up with 3 points that can be applied to virtually all AI use situations - 1) we need to remind people who ask AI to do the entire task that this behavior pretty much guarantees that they will be the first person replaced by AI, 2) AI is a tool as much as a piece of heavy equipment or a doctor's scalpel and equally dangerous, and we absolutely need to decide how to train and certify people to use AI properly, and 3) perhaps more realistic pricing on AI use will encourage people to use it more intelligently.
I still don't think we need AI, but it is here, so let's try to use it better.
Ha, good point on #1!
As I like to say, the only jobs AI can take are those jobs that could be done by trained chimpanzees - and since those jobs are currently being done by trained chimpanzees - which is what humans basically are - then if you want to keep your job it behooves one to stop acting like a trained chimpanzee.
Except doing "jobs" for corporations - i.e. acting like a peasant in the feudal era - IS behaving like a trained chimpanzee.
Stop being an employee and start being an independent contractor paid for results instead of time and with control over your own work.