> "humans would visit the website and the creator would get some reward"
That expectation is a problem, has always been a problem, and Tim Berners Lee never mentioned anything about a reward structure when coming up with the WWW.
That expectation is a problem, has always been a problem, and Tim Berners Lee never mentioned anything about a reward structure when coming up with the WWW.
Should be "You're thinking".
This should be "This should be 'You're thinking'." don't you think? Why bother correcting someone's grammar with a sentence fragment? You're just trading one mistake for another. I'm hoping someone finds a grammar error in my post, because continuing this would be hilarious.
Reflexively, I think it should be more like ...
javascript: `This should be "You're thinking".` ;
// to preserve the original character use and to avoid '...'...' parse foos
// however `"...".` also possibly deserves a [sic] to critique the original
// i.e. ~grammar police say the period belongs within the quote marks, no?
In that case the creator should welcome AIs with open arms; a human reader will forget eventually, but the AI will preserve the knowledge forever.
no, only some mangled form of it
A lot of us hate that with a white-hot passion akin to the eye-melting intensity of an arc welder.
If you don't understand that, then yes, I expect you're quite happy with LLMs, and indeed find inexplicable the reactions of those who are emphatically not happy with genAI.
It's not even about votes, I don't even need votes. Whenever I write something that I am happy with, I read and reread it imagining I am reading it as a third person. Sometimes it forces me to rework my arguments. I wouldn't write to convey my ideas through a chatbot. And that's what this post is about-- killing the internet and with it decimating any audience you might have accrued if you had something to say and you published it on a website.