I’m pointing out that people find excuses to hate on AI regardless of what you do with it. Makes it pointless to compromise or otherwise try to satisfy them.
Who said it needs to add value? The article claims that showing AI-generated content to others without them explicitly asking for it is inherently bad - even when you tell them it’s AI. So basically: if you share it without mentioning the source you’re deceiving people, and if you do mention it it’s still bad… because reasons.
To me that just sounds like an ideological stance more than a logical one.
Value in the abstract sense of “desirable thing” not necessarily monetary.
If I’m having a conversation within and ask them about a thing, I’d much rather an “I don’t know” than whatever the plagiarism engine’s facsimile of an opinion is.
Lot of people have strong opinions about ai, many of them very bad. Because what should be a novelty or maybe a part of a more sophisticated system instead of the half assed implementation that it currently is. At the low low price of stealing from artists and fucking the environment.
Over the years there have been so many conversations I’ve been in online where someone asked something where the answer was trivially found with Google or some other search engine, but the conversation was interesting so I would Google it and provide the answer as part of my response. Is that blockworthy too?
Uh huh. And at the same time, I’m frequently told “it’s the deception that we hate! Don’t claim you did something if an AI actually did it!”
Deception is bad too, wtf are you talking about?
I’m pointing out that people find excuses to hate on AI regardless of what you do with it. Makes it pointless to compromise or otherwise try to satisfy them.
It does multiple bad things.
Saying “aha, you used to say you hated deception, but now you hate another bad thing” is not a gotcha.
I dislike many bad things, but you seem locked into defending AI at all costs. Please go back to Reddit.
I seem to recall that the Fediverse was keen to bring in Reddit refugees. Only ones that agree with the existing preferred opinions, I guess?
More important to have your own opinions than anything. Sounds like you are outsourcing.
What value is it adding at any point? If I wanted to use chat gpt, I’d go off myself.
Who said it needs to add value? The article claims that showing AI-generated content to others without them explicitly asking for it is inherently bad - even when you tell them it’s AI. So basically: if you share it without mentioning the source you’re deceiving people, and if you do mention it it’s still bad… because reasons.
To me that just sounds like an ideological stance more than a logical one.
Value in the abstract sense of “desirable thing” not necessarily monetary.
If I’m having a conversation within and ask them about a thing, I’d much rather an “I don’t know” than whatever the plagiarism engine’s facsimile of an opinion is.
Lot of people have strong opinions about ai, many of them very bad. Because what should be a novelty or maybe a part of a more sophisticated system instead of the half assed implementation that it currently is. At the low low price of stealing from artists and fucking the environment.
You don’t have to use it. Other people who do find value in it use it.
Ok. But the context is that of a conversation. Where is the value sharing there?
OP provided no context whatsoever.
Over the years there have been so many conversations I’ve been in online where someone asked something where the answer was trivially found with Google or some other search engine, but the conversation was interesting so I would Google it and provide the answer as part of my response. Is that blockworthy too?
I don’t think you read the post or you wouldn’t be responding to a completely different argument