SonstHarmlos@SonstHarmlos@sueden.social
@Aron@nerdculture.de @denschub@mastodon.schub.social When word processing software started becoming usable on personal computers, some people argued that this would make the writing worse, because you can change the written text at any time. Unlike a typewriter, which forced you to think before putting words on paper.
This it what some parts of the anti-AI sentiment remind me of.
Aron@Aron@nerdculture.de
@SonstHarmlos@sueden.social @denschub@mastodon.schub.social
Who creates the output when using:
- a typewriter?
- a word processor?
- a LLM with a prompt?
It's a very bad comparison, to my mind.
I agree, that LLMs used as in ChatGPT and similar won't just disappear, but they most probably won't surpass a certain level, as that is inherently given by how they work internally. One can try to mitigate the drawbacks, but that won't solve the underlying problems. I will be happily proven wrong on this one.
To be open and curious and at the same time call it "anti-AI sentiment" is more than just a bit confusing, as it suggests there is no critical assessment of new technologies. It's good to acknowledge the advantages but turning a blind eye on the disadvantages and fingerpointing at existing and proven technologies by saying "With those XY is also not good" shows that you might be relying on a hype.
I think I've laid down all my points in the past comments, so I wouldn't answer if I would repeat myself.