The Economist is a ridiculous gawp rag for the wealthy. Like The National Enquirer for people who have their BMWs paid off.
SplendidPunkinButter on
But AI companies claim their AI can write really well, so the fact that not all humans are good writers is irrelevant. The entire point of using a computer is that it’s supposed to perform a specific task better than a human could do it.
Imagine if they tried to sell word processors that give you horrible writer’s cramp and print nearly illegible text, and then they said “but that happens when you write by hand too.” Sure, but why use your word processor instead then?
CheeseburgerBrown on
I’ve made this point before about design work, when my colleagues were insisting generative work would never displace them because it looked crappy. They were forgetting that *people love crap.*
I don’t usually agree with the Economist, but today we’re on the same page. We can’t be surprised that great swaths of the public can’t discern what makes generative text awful, partly because the state of literacy is eroding but mostly because good taste is rare.
Twilifa on
And yet, I would still rather support a mediocre human writer than a mediocre bot writer, or even a good bot writer for that matter.
questron64 on
I like my slop organic.
uoaei on
the difference is, bad writers generally dont spend their time writing
Three_Froggy_Problem on
It’s kind of a straw man to act like the issue with AI is just that the work it produces is bad.
With how fast AI is advancing, it’s entirely possible that, in a few years, it could write a book that might be considered “good.” It makes no difference.
The issue of AI art is an existential one, not a qualitative one.
raysofdavies on
> The Economist,a journal that speaks for the British millionaires
8 Comments
The Economist is a ridiculous gawp rag for the wealthy. Like The National Enquirer for people who have their BMWs paid off.
But AI companies claim their AI can write really well, so the fact that not all humans are good writers is irrelevant. The entire point of using a computer is that it’s supposed to perform a specific task better than a human could do it.
Imagine if they tried to sell word processors that give you horrible writer’s cramp and print nearly illegible text, and then they said “but that happens when you write by hand too.” Sure, but why use your word processor instead then?
I’ve made this point before about design work, when my colleagues were insisting generative work would never displace them because it looked crappy. They were forgetting that *people love crap.*
I don’t usually agree with the Economist, but today we’re on the same page. We can’t be surprised that great swaths of the public can’t discern what makes generative text awful, partly because the state of literacy is eroding but mostly because good taste is rare.
And yet, I would still rather support a mediocre human writer than a mediocre bot writer, or even a good bot writer for that matter.
I like my slop organic.
the difference is, bad writers generally dont spend their time writing
It’s kind of a straw man to act like the issue with AI is just that the work it produces is bad.
With how fast AI is advancing, it’s entirely possible that, in a few years, it could write a book that might be considered “good.” It makes no difference.
The issue of AI art is an existential one, not a qualitative one.
> The Economist,a journal that speaks for the British millionaires
Lenin didn’t miss here. Absolutely useless rag