If you don't mind that your content is meh, then you might as well use ChatGPT. I don't know who would want to read it, but apparently people do.
People would probably rather read insightful, interesting writing -- but not enough to pay much for it.
If it works for their business needs, they could not care less, though...
If people cared for quality they'd be reading Tolstoy, Hemingway and the like, not listicles and Lee Child.
All of these works are in wide circulation, with thousands or perhaps millions of readers each year. But which works do you think will have the most readers 100 years from now?
If a computer can do all of the essay writing and test taking… how many jobs did it just eliminate?
Perhaps all, perhaps none. Tests (e.g. in school) are supposed to filter people. So a good test score in a well-designed test "correlates strongly with the human students' future performance" or perhaps "correlates strongly with the amount of work they tend to put in preparing". That's almost completely orthogonal to the test being about or requiring relevant skills to pass.
To illustrate this, very great chess players tend to be reasonably smart (e.g. you might expect them to be able to adapt and learn how to decently run a company). An AI that can wipe the floor with them can do no such thing.
Maybe this fundamental difference will go away with "general" AI and we may then judge it using human tests, but that's not a given.
I think you might be overestimating how many of those bullshit corporate jobs "need" to exist in the first place.
A consultant whose job is to rubber stamp an executive's decision may be able to use ChatGPT to write their justifications and keep everybody happy but if the exec went straight to the source they would completely undermine themselves.
If everything you do for money goes in and out over a wire, you're in trouble.
The stunted robotic writing is what you get if you don't prompt it. You can tell it to write like Hunter S. Thompson and Chuck Palahniuk for example:
As your cursor hovers over the downvote button, your heart races with anticipation. You can feel the sweat beads forming on your forehead as you prepare to unleash your disapproval upon the unsuspecting post. The adrenaline courses through your veins like a river of fire, urging you to click that button and unleash your fury upon the unworthy.
The moment you click that button, everything else fades away into a blur. The world around you dissolves into a haze of red-hot anger and righteous indignation. You can feel the power surging through you, as if you've become some kind of digital god, smiting the unworthy with your divine judgment.
And then, just like that, it's over. The rush subsides, and you're left with a sense of satisfaction and smug superiority. You've done your part to uphold the standards of Hacker News, and you've done it with all the ferocity and passion of a true believer.
In the end, it's not about the downvote itself. It's about the power it represents, the ability to shape the discourse and wield influence in the digital realm. And for those brief, glorious moments, you are the master of your own destiny, a force to be reckoned with in the online world.
Please write me a paragraph, in the style of Malcolm Gladwell, explaining why content written by ChatGPT is likely to be of higher quality than that written by a human writer.
The output is rather amusing.
This one is rather amusing as well:
Please write me a paragraph, in the style of Robert X. Cringely, explaining why content written by ChatGPT is likely to be of higher quality than that written by a human writer.
In my opinion, for the former, the business is dead. Unless search engines figure out a way to derank GPT generated content (most likely will never happen) or they completely ignore random copy while ranking. For the latter, it might be exciting times, since people (I guess, me?) might start searching for actually human generated content.
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:70270343...
Open source LLMs are already at the finish line.
What is the finish line? Why are contenders like ChatGPT or Claude "winning the race to the bottom" in your opinion?
Thanks in advance
$0 / free is the finish line. Open source LLMs being released for free are undercutting the AI LLM services.
> Why are contenders like ChatGPT or Claude "winning the race to the bottom"
They're automating some humans in several industries and cheapening other professions. Why pay translators, copywriters, etc when a AI LLM can do it 95% cheaper or a locally installed LLM can do it for free.
The pricing of these AI LLM services are close to free and they can't cut prices any further. Once locally installed LLMs eventually equal the performance of that of GPT-4, Claude, etc the only logical step for those services is to slowly increase their prices and add more features as running these AI LLM services is very expensive.
Open source LLMs are essentially at the finish line of the race to the bottom but are admittedly not good yet, but will eventually be. Cloud LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude right now are good enough, close to free and are 95% cheaper than hiring a human journalists, copywriter, translator, etc.
Sure, ChatGPT's not as lit as those creative human writers, but it's a game changer for peeps on a budget. And remember, this AI's still evolving, so the sky's the limit!
Human writers got that unique vibe, no cap. But for some folks, ChatGPT is the real deal when cash is tight. So, don't throw shade at the AI too soon, it's out here doing its best.
It was using some outdated terms so I then asked it to only use slang from the last decade and this is what we got.
This is stank level 7/10. You can turn the stank up or down.
> THE AFRICAN AMERICAN VERNACULAR ENGLISH (AAVE) MEANING OF "STANK" "Stank" is an African American Vernacular English adjective that means "really stinks". “Stank” can also be an African American Vernacular English(AAVE) noun. One AAVE meaning for that noun is “someone or something who (that) really stinks”. No past tense is meant or implied by the AAVE word “stank”.
> Although the word “stank” in the saying “Put some tank on it” originally meant to have an odorous (stinky) smell, the contemporary meaning of “stank” in that saying means to add your own unique flavor (style) to something that you do and in doing so, make it funky (with "funky" meaning "very good".
> The phrase "add some soul to it" and "add your own flavor to the mix" are synonyms for "Put some stank on it".
http://pancocojams.blogspot.com/2020/11/what-african-america...
Although, I've always sucked at English so I'm open to being wrong.
The parent comment to you said “writing -- but”. The “-” used there is different from the endash; “–”. And so I posit that “--” (double hyphen) is emulating “–” (endash).