"Refusing to use AI" doesn't make sense to me as a blanket policy. If you're going to make that commitment - to yourself or to anyone else - you'll need to be a lot more precise in what you actually mean by that.
I still check the output of the spell checker. I still check the output of the search engine.
The problem with these "AI" tools is that they are magnitudes more likely to encourage you to not check the output because checking the output takes orders of magnitude longer than it does to check the output of a spell checker or search engine.
Do people refer to spell checkers as AI? No, so I don't include that. But I also don't use spell checkers, actually, including on my blog. [1]
I agree: I think it's rude to expect people to spend more time reading something than you spent writing it!
But... there are still plenty of ways to integrate ChatGPT-like-tools into a writing process that I think avoid disrespecting your audience like that. I use it as a thesaurus, or to suggest ways my writing could be improved, or as a brainstorming companion for example.
My objection to ChatGPT is yes, about generating full sentences.
I object to it for many reasons, but not necessarily just because it's rude. My biggest concern is actually that it takes out the voice of the human.
I have a hard enough time figuring out what people are thinking in person (I'm on the spectrum) that doing it through text is like trying to sense the movement of fish with my eyes closed on shore. Making everybody have the same bland voice would turn that up to 11.
I want the human, even if the human isn't perfect.
Have you seen the latest research, where GPT-4 is shown to have "Theory of Mind"-like ability (what people are thinking) at a human 7-year old level?
And that certainly doesn't help me with theory of mind problems.
Well, it looked convincing to me. But sure, this is a new field, maybe they made some mistake. This is what science is for. Skeptics need to review this claim and try to poke holes in it.
I just can't see how a "stochastic parrot" could get anywhere near generating such accurate answers to "theory of mind" questions?
And we see this in the development of LLMs over the last few years. The earlier ones were much closer to stochastic parrots. But once the models got big enough, something happened. The performance in these type of questions jumped dramatically.
It was like the LLMs had been forced through training to evolve processing-like capabilities, and not just pattern matching inputs to outputs.
Can you think of counter-examples, where you think GPT-4 can't answer a theory of mind question many people would be able to?
> I have a hard enough time figuring out what people are thinking in person (I'm on the spectrum) that doing it through text is like trying to sense the movement of fish with my eyes closed on shore. > And that certainly doesn't help me with theory of mind problems.
Sorry to hear that! I have similar issues, but not nearly as bad. I sometimes catch myself afterwards having responded to an email just writing basic responses about how I am doing, without reciprocating with similar questions, etc.
If you get an email where it is hard to understand what the person is thinking, wouldn't GPT-4 help in giving you a list of possible alternatives?
There are degrees of effort in any lifestyle. Degrees of 'veganism', or 'anti-AI' use.
Is there _really_ cognitive dissonance of someone doing some action to reduce their impact on animal welfare? Doing _more than most people_ to reduce their impact on animals? I say this as a regular meat eater, not a vegan. Your point comes across as bait-y for the sake of being bait-y, rather than contributing anything meaningful to the conversation.