(no title)
alontorres | 17 days ago
But if the post was generated through a long process of back-and-forth with the model, where significant modifications/additions were made by a human? I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
alontorres | 17 days ago
But if the post was generated through a long process of back-and-forth with the model, where significant modifications/additions were made by a human? I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
yabones|17 days ago
alontorres|17 days ago
I do agree with your core point - the thinking is what matters. Where I've found LLMs most useful in my own writing is as a thinking tool, not a writing tool.
Using them to challenge my assumptions, point out gaps in my argument, or steelman the opposing view. The final prose is mine, but the thinking got sharper through the process.
Zambyte|17 days ago
fwip|17 days ago
alontorres|17 days ago
But AI-generated content is here to stay, and it's only going to get harder to distinguish the two over time. At some point we probably just have to judge text on its own merits regardless of how it was produced.
lproven|17 days ago
I do think there's a great deal wrong with that, and I won't read it at all.
Human can speak unto human unless there's language barrier. I am not interested in anyone's mechanically-recovered verbiage, no matter how much they massaged it.
account42|17 days ago