pull down to refresh

112 sats \ 3 replies \ @billytheked 22 Jul \ on: Against Claudefishing - Chris Best AI the_stacker_muse
it's just too easy for the not to wrote for it to matter.

After rereading this sentence a few times I figured out what it was that bothered me about it, and that is that I don't consider whatever it is that bots do writing, for that would intimate the process of putting thoughts, of which a bot has none, into words.

I enjoy good writing. I like reading the work of writers.

I do not enjoy the whatever trimmings - ground, emulsified, packaged and then steamed to form snappy bite-sized capsules - that bots produce.

write
compose
62 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby OP 22 Jul

sadly, that sentence was mangled by my fat fingers and autocorrect. it was meant to be:

it's just too easy for the bot to write for it to matter.

I think that the bots intentionally sabotaged me.

reply
112 sats \ 1 reply \ @billytheked 22 Jul

I made out the meaning!

I wasn't trying to point out your mistake, I was just saying that I think what bots do isn't in fact writing.

So no need for labour theory, we just need stricter definitions.

I think that the bots intentionally sabotaged me

Lol

reply
263 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 22 Jul

It's funny: I also enjoy good writing, I practice writing every day -- but I don't think I agree that we can define our way out of this.

I'd love to say that what the bots do is excluded from writing by definition. But the problem is that I keep reading it and then realizing a little way in that of is probably slop. Or sometimes only after someone else points it out. I'm ashamed to admit that my slopometer is not as tuned as some.

I can dismiss it as not writing, but this move sounds a little like the reason my mother refused to let me read cool SciFi and fantasy books or comics -- they weren't literature.

I want a stronger defense against the slop for when it gets better -- because it will get better.

Currently, my problem with slop is that it is thoughtless, like a person who doesn't quite care what they say or even if it makes sense. It might just as well make an argument for living without any technology or tools at all (Thor Heyerdal style) as embracing all the post humanist longevity stuff of Bryan Johnson. It just doesn't care what it says.

This lack of loyalty to any particular thought is very unnerving. A human who behaved like that would quickly be friendless.

reply