Sometimes people ask me why I don't use AI.
pull down to refresh
200 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 22 Jul
First: I haven't read Blindsight, but now I really want to.
Second:
This makes sense.
Proof-of-work is an interesting analogy here. The reason it is important is that it's hard to fake. I believe that is the only reason. If we came up with another solution for hard-to-fake, it might be just as good as proof-of-work...or even better (I'm not holding my breath, though).
Does it matter how much proof-of-thought is put into a thing? If some article or story has more proof-of-thought than another, what would that mean? It's almost like we want proof-of-human because we are much more interested to interact with a human than with a bot.
I don't think I care that much whether a person thought for a little or a lot about what they say to me. I just want it to be interesting and novel and challenging and not hollow. Hollow is what I would call the feeling when I read AI slop and it is a bunch of words that do indeed go together, but which don't give me the sense that anyone thought through their implications or arrived at them because of an argument so much as because they "seemed like they should go together." Hollow does feel like poison.
AI slop as poison is something I hadn't considered before. Really makes me want to read Blindsight even more. Thanks for this link!
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Macoy31 3h outlawed
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.