I'm sure lots of "readers" of such articles fed it to another AI model to summarize it, thereby completely bypassing the usual human experience of writing and then careful (and critical) reading and parsing of the article text. I weep for the future.
Also, reminds me of this cartoon from March 2023. [0]
Are people doing this or is this just what, like, Apple or someone is telling us people are doing?
Because I've never seen anyone actually use a summarizing AI willingly. And especially not for blogs and other discretionary activities.
That's like getting the remote from the hit blockbuster "Click" starring Adam Sandler (2006) and then using it to skip sex. Just doesn't make any sense.
I'm curious if the people who are using AI to summarize articles are the same people who would have actually read more than the headline to begin with. It feels to me like the sort of person who would have read the article and applied critical thinking to it is not going to use an AI summary to bypass that since they won't be satisfied with it.
> If they can’t be bothered to write it, why should I be bothered to read it?
Isn't that the same with AI-generated source code? If lazy programmers didn't bother writing it, why should I bother reading it? I'll ask the AI to understand it and to make the necessary changes. Now, let's repeat this process over and over. I wonder what would be the state of such code over time. We are clearly walking this path.
I didn't say the source code is the same as a blog post. I pointed out that we are going to apply the "I don't bother" approach to the source code as well.
Programming languages were originally invented for humans to write and read. Computers don't need them. They are fine with machine code. If we eliminate humans from the coding process, the code could become something that is not targeted for humans. And machines will be fine with that too.
Many of those who can't be bothered to write what they publish probably can't be bothered to read it themselves, either. Not by humans and certainly not for humans.
Because the author has something to say and needs help saying it?
pre-AI scientists would publish papers and then journalists would write summaries which were usually misleading and often wrong.
An AI operating on its own would likely be no better than the journalist, but an AI supervised by the original scientist quite likely might do a better job.
I agree, I think there is such a thing as AI overuse, but I would rather someone uses AI to form their points more succinctly than for them to write something that I can't understand.
If you assume that a LLM's expansion of someone's thoughts is less their thoughts than someone copy and pasting a tired meme, that exposes a pretty fundamental world view divide. I'm ok with you just hating AI stuff because it's AI, but have the guts to own your prejudice and state it openly -- you're always going to hate AI no matter how good it gets, just be clear about that. I can't stand people who try to make up pretty sounding reasons to justify their primal hatred.
I'm sure lots of "readers" of such articles fed it to another AI model to summarize it, thereby completely bypassing the usual human experience of writing and then careful (and critical) reading and parsing of the article text. I weep for the future.
Also, reminds me of this cartoon from March 2023. [0]
[0] https://marketoonist.com/2023/03/ai-written-ai-read.html
Are people doing this or is this just what, like, Apple or someone is telling us people are doing?
Because I've never seen anyone actually use a summarizing AI willingly. And especially not for blogs and other discretionary activities.
That's like getting the remote from the hit blockbuster "Click" starring Adam Sandler (2006) and then using it to skip sex. Just doesn't make any sense.
I'm curious if the people who are using AI to summarize articles are the same people who would have actually read more than the headline to begin with. It feels to me like the sort of person who would have read the article and applied critical thinking to it is not going to use an AI summary to bypass that since they won't be satisfied with it.
> If they can’t be bothered to write it, why should I be bothered to read it?
Isn't that the same with AI-generated source code? If lazy programmers didn't bother writing it, why should I bother reading it? I'll ask the AI to understand it and to make the necessary changes. Now, let's repeat this process over and over. I wonder what would be the state of such code over time. We are clearly walking this path.
Why would source code be considered the same as a blog post?
I didn't say the source code is the same as a blog post. I pointed out that we are going to apply the "I don't bother" approach to the source code as well.
Programming languages were originally invented for humans to write and read. Computers don't need them. They are fine with machine code. If we eliminate humans from the coding process, the code could become something that is not targeted for humans. And machines will be fine with that too.
Why would I bother to run it? Why wouldn't I just have AI to read it and then provide output on my input?
Many of those who can't be bothered to write what they publish probably can't be bothered to read it themselves, either. Not by humans and certainly not for humans.
They used to say judge the message, not the messenger.
But you are saying that is wrong, you should judge the messenger, not the message.
Now that I think about it, it's rather ironic that's a quote because you didn't write it.
Because the author has something to say and needs help saying it?
pre-AI scientists would publish papers and then journalists would write summaries which were usually misleading and often wrong.
An AI operating on its own would likely be no better than the journalist, but an AI supervised by the original scientist quite likely might do a better job.
I agree, I think there is such a thing as AI overuse, but I would rather someone uses AI to form their points more succinctly than for them to write something that I can't understand.
Tired meme. If you can't be bothered to think up an original idea, why bother to post?
2+2 doesn’t suddenly become 5 just because you’re bored of 4.
If you assume that a LLM's expansion of someone's thoughts is less their thoughts than someone copy and pasting a tired meme, that exposes a pretty fundamental world view divide. I'm ok with you just hating AI stuff because it's AI, but have the guts to own your prejudice and state it openly -- you're always going to hate AI no matter how good it gets, just be clear about that. I can't stand people who try to make up pretty sounding reasons to justify their primal hatred.
I don’t hate AI, I hate liars. It’s just that so far, the former has proven itself to be of little use to anyone but the latter.