@delta_vee @hipsterelectron I've been making bots that do interesting pattern things with language for about fifteen years, and one of the things I've learned is that people have wild apophenic responses to things and also very little intuition or skepticism (literacy, broadly speaking) about generative systems. At first I felt like you did, now I feel more complicated about it, like I can't blame people for being... people about things, I guess?
d@nny "disc@" mcClanahan
@darius @delta_vee i don't blame people for having the idea that "AI" assistants are extremely helpful tools but i'm always very interested in what they mean by that in the same way i would be in my prior role working on build tooling at twitter. people often have strong reactions to their tooling and often mistake which element of their tooling is causing them pain or helping them. for example, is chatgpt's innovation the actual text generator, or is it the chat interface they display to users that makes it more useful than search? is it more useful than search? what do people mean when they say it's more useful than search? do they feel productive? do they feel less worried about their creative output because they didn't write it themselves? i am terribly interested in how and why people are made to gather around technology
Raymond Neilson
@darius I get that, which is why I don't tend to bring it up in debates. But in the spirit of @hipsterelectron's original point, I do feel like there needs to be some counterargument made -- I just don't know how to make "if you think it helps you, you're probably lying to yourself, or you don't understand how you've undermined yourself" into a more...palatable argument