[flagged]
Ethical: favour the notion that humans should be who we look to for writing, and that some of them are hopefully meaningfully compensated for it
Political: favour the decentralisation of effort away from US cloud AI firms
Practical: there's too much to read in the world; a very useful quality signal is to favour things obvious people put obvious effort into
Personal: it is soul-destroying that we live in a world that suddenly devalues people and their efforts so completely.
I think perhaps you are showing your own bias here. But abusing people for their chosen principles is not a business-winning strategy.
Imagine if Kobalt, Craftsman and DeWalt were scummy as fuck, and a bunch of people went around on the internet shit talking anyone who used power tools, and calling anything they built with them trash. That's the reality we're in now.
If you read the summary/abstract and nope out because there's nothing interesting or insightful, whatever, but if you were interested in subject of the article and its assertions and you nope out because of an AI writing tic, that's just toolish.
I'm sure this has happened. If the author can speak with authority about everything that has written, then ya, I have to concede that is fine. It's obviously the most true when you are going to be engaging with the author. If you ask them a question and they respond, "I'm no sure, the LLM wrote it," that is a huge problem (and pretty pathetic, I might add).
> but if you were interested in subject of the article and its assertions and you nope out because of an AI writing tic, that's just toolish.
Meh, it I can find another article on the same subject written by a person then it's not too toolish. I've never liked this argument. It's the same thing with music. Even if I like a piece of music, and then I find out it's AI, I'm not going to listen to it. I can understand why people think this is stupid, but there is SO much music--even before it exponentially exploded with AI--that I can find something else I really like created by a person. Especially since when something really tickles my fancy, I like to read everything I can about the artist (which is an indirect form of engagement).
That's why I don't take this too seriously, at the end of the day you're complaining about time that you're probably wasting online and getting mad at the author for potentially saving time, too. Does generating images mean you don't understand what you're writing about?
I'm a major AI user. Coding? Sure. But language learning, some art projects, TTRPG design. I'm so far 'lost' that I have a number of AI songs on my YouTube play list. For the anti-AI people, I'm like a walking abomination.
Yet despite all this, I still am a firm believer in "if you couldn't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it" as a default stance. I feel human to human communication should remain human to human. If AI is involved, the extent should be limited to where the human to human communication couldn't be achieved otherwise and fully disclosed.
Someone might even say I'm a bit of a hypocrite. Why do I like listening to an AI song but not reading an AI blog. Honestly, I'm not sure. I'm actually a bit puzzled by it myself. Regardless of the why, I think I should be an example of someone who holds this position for reasons entirely different than those you suggest.
I don't even disagree with you in general, a lot of AI discourse does seem to have bad faith arguments put forward and I do tire of some of them. But this specific one is one of the more few that seem good faith enough we should steelman it.
If you create something AI generated and post it in spaces where people expect to engage with other humans by way of human-created artifacts, then at best you’re dishonestly wasting everyone’s time. At worst, using AI generated responses to substitute for discourse assumes that other peoples’ time and attention are worth less than your own and direct communication is beneath you.