I have heard lots of stupid things, and this is in the top ten indeed.
The first stupiditt is that people who use AI,.don’t use it all the time. So no not all their respondes are generated.
The second stupidity is that using AI means they use it to generate responses. Maybe they only use it to gather information or automate work tasks.
And the third stupidity is that using AI means you don’t also use your brain, thus “no conscience”.
Applying the same logic, people who read books are NPCs too because all their responses are generated, no conscience there, just sentences taken from books.
Tell me you’ve never read a book without telling me. When you read books your brain starts to produce images, scenes and new thought processes depending on what you read. That is not how I would describe copy-pasting AI output
As much as it pains me to carry water for AI, do you think that people are replacing things they liked to do with AI?
Like… They were reading for pleasure, and then they had the AI read it for them instead?
That they were talking to their friends they enjoy speaking with, and then they had the AI talk to their friends instead?
Or are you saying that what you describe is the experience that you get from reading technical manuals for your work? For reading warning labels? From talking with coworkers you dislike?
If you use AI instead of reading warning labels, please get the fuck out of whatever job you’re doing. You’ll save countless lives, first of all your own.
And show me where I said people were using AI to read it.
Because I was describing the class of reading material which is dry and unimaginative, to contrast your description of what reading does to peoples minds.
I was describing two classes of data: the kind that fit what your describe, and therefore people don’t actually use AI on it, and dry technical data that doesn’t grant the benefits you describe. I did not say if people use AI on the technical material, only that they don’t use it with the enjoyable material.
So no, I didn’t say that, and if you read it as carefully a you seem to expect everyone else but you too, then you’d have just shut up instead of doubling down embarrassingly.
You’ve put it in the same list of things people dislike, along with talking to coworkers they don’t like. Right after making a point of people using AI for things they don’t like to do. Maybe you should ask the AI that generates your comments to try better.
Ah, yeah, if we’re playing the game of nitpick: show me where I claimed people were using AI to read warning labels? My first response to you started with “if”. At no point did I assert that as a fact or even assumption. But since you took it so personally, I might have hit too close to home?
Or are you saying that what you describe is the experience that you get from reading technical manuals for your work? For reading warning labels? From talking with coworkers you dislike?
You
If you use AI instead of reading warning labels, please get the fuck out of whatever job you’re doing. You’ll save countless lives, first of all your own.
Them
If that’s what you thought that I said, then you have no right to judge people on their lack of intelligence or literacy.
You
Yes, that’s what I thought you said, because that’s what you said. If you’ve somehow said something opposite from what you meant, that’s on you.
I have heard lots of stupid things, and this is in the top ten indeed.
The first stupiditt is that people who use AI,.don’t use it all the time. So no not all their respondes are generated.
The second stupidity is that using AI means they use it to generate responses. Maybe they only use it to gather information or automate work tasks.
And the third stupidity is that using AI means you don’t also use your brain, thus “no conscience”.
Applying the same logic, people who read books are NPCs too because all their responses are generated, no conscience there, just sentences taken from books.
/s just in case (referring to books)
Tell me you’ve never read a book without telling me. When you read books your brain starts to produce images, scenes and new thought processes depending on what you read. That is not how I would describe copy-pasting AI output
As much as it pains me to carry water for AI, do you think that people are replacing things they liked to do with AI?
Like… They were reading for pleasure, and then they had the AI read it for them instead?
That they were talking to their friends they enjoy speaking with, and then they had the AI talk to their friends instead?
Or are you saying that what you describe is the experience that you get from reading technical manuals for your work? For reading warning labels? From talking with coworkers you dislike?
If you use AI instead of reading warning labels, please get the fuck out of whatever job you’re doing. You’ll save countless lives, first of all your own.
If that’s what you thought that I said, then you have no right to judge people on their lack of intelligence or literacy.
Yes, that’s what I thought you said, because that’s what you said. If you’ve somehow said something opposite from what you meant, that’s on you.
And show me where I said people were using AI to read it.
Because I was describing the class of reading material which is dry and unimaginative, to contrast your description of what reading does to peoples minds.
I was describing two classes of data: the kind that fit what your describe, and therefore people don’t actually use AI on it, and dry technical data that doesn’t grant the benefits you describe. I did not say if people use AI on the technical material, only that they don’t use it with the enjoyable material.
So no, I didn’t say that, and if you read it as carefully a you seem to expect everyone else but you too, then you’d have just shut up instead of doubling down embarrassingly.
You’ve put it in the same list of things people dislike, along with talking to coworkers they don’t like. Right after making a point of people using AI for things they don’t like to do. Maybe you should ask the AI that generates your comments to try better.
Ah, yeah, if we’re playing the game of nitpick: show me where I claimed people were using AI to read warning labels? My first response to you started with “if”. At no point did I assert that as a fact or even assumption. But since you took it so personally, I might have hit too close to home?
Them
You
Them
You
You’re acting in bad faith by intentionally misunderstanding them and making it personal.
You’re acting in bad faith by intentionally misunderstanding me. But I guess that’s to be expected from an AI bro.
Nobody copy and paste the ai output like op wrote, just to interact with people.
And nobody read ai output for enjoyment either.
Yes the book analogy was wrong, but the point I was making is that OP post is just stupid on so many levels.
I might day that even AI would have done a better job at writing that post…