I am all for supporting local artists and I feel that “handcrafted in XXX” products make great souvenirs when you’re connected to those places. Still, if some AI hallucinated me a perfect novel for my interests, or generated something I couldnt tell was manufactured or created by a master, I would happily enjoy it.

“How can I tell if this is slop so I can know to hate it” sounds stupid to me: good is good. When it comes to art / food / products, I want the best experience for ME. If I want human connectedness, then I’ll go interact with a human directly.

I can do without wasted water, power, and money, but in the abstract it seems to bother everyone on Lemmy to enjoy something a person didn’t make. I don’t have that hang-up.

  • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    I think we can both agree that AI methods have no place in original journalism without oversight and input from actual journalists.

    That said, for articles in general, not every source is fake if it comes from a language model. That’s the whole point of Resource Augmented Generation (RAG) for example.

    While you may glean some perspective from reading comments here, I would say that 1) not every perspective is that good or worth assimilating, and 2) even though as far as you know I’m a person, there’s still no reason you can trust that the post I referenced actually existed. It’s hard to say that misinformation is made worse or better by AI, people who want to lead you somewhere wrong will still do it.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      there’s still no reason you can trust that the post I referenced actually existed

      Yes there are. I’ve seen plenty of posts like that, so it’s plausible. It could be verified without too much effort, so even though I’m not going to go to the effort, it would be a risky lie to tell, a different lie would make much more sense. There’s not a lot of reasons for you to write all this other than being actually frustrated with people’s sentiments on this issue, and considering that the apparent strength of an argument isn’t likely to change many people’s minds here anyway, the emotional logic for that to be a deception doesn’t really check out.

      It’s hard to say that misinformation is made worse or better by AI, people who want to lead you somewhere wrong will still do it.

      I would say that the big difference is the depth of misinformation, especially in the context of informal writing. Someone can have an agenda and try to work out how to manipulate people in the direction of their agenda. Someone can want to fuck with people and tell arbitrary lies for their amusement or feelings of dominance. But in all those cases, what they say is still a product of who they are, what they are thinking and how they are feeling, and that information comes through in one way or another. For all of that subtle information about the state of people to be buried in noise all coming from the same source is a terrible thing.