When we anticipated that a function would eventually be automated by artificial intelligence, we would designate as a task force AI.
Meanwhile, the AI would start out as “actually, interns” until we built up enough operational data to create a training suite. So in our case, AI often meant “Actually Interns”.
Sometimes we contracted a firm in India for mechanical Turk type tasks as well, so it also worked for that.
So write me prototype code to do something that I can describe in brief, but skeptical of doing things that are futzing with per-application use case cloud settings. I don't want to have to learn how you adjust foo or bar or baz on google cloud and aws and azure and ... - automating that is useful. I'd like to automate say java memory changes, but making the gc system do it without me needing to change flags is even better.
Most users thought we gave up on AI and went to real people when we transitioned from humans to AI lol.
> A Gannett spokesperson took issue with the Guild claim that the writers weren’t real people, pointing to the LinkedIn page of one AdVon Commerce writer whose name appeared on a Reviewed article. At the top of his account, that writer touted his experience in “polishing AI generative text.”
Like... This is like pointing to a robot and saying it isn't a robot. Nobody is fooled. But... why even do it? Isn't it... idk, embarrassing? To just talk complete nonsense?
Agreed. Maybe there's a proper term for it but I call it the "hitman fallacy," where people reason that they can't be accused of murder because they aren't the party that pulled the trigger.
In a way, I can see their [tortured] logic-- they did in fact pay real money to a real person to write that article. It should follow that a real person did in fact write it, otherwise it's fraud.
Gannett shies away from calling it that because it's not fraud when the other party delivers what you asked for.