I’m actually pretty bullish on AI, especially open-weight models, but I don't think the narrative is necessarily framed poorly.
All they’re saying is that they want to make sure the finalized articles are handwritten and aren't chockful of LLM slophistry. They even mention in this very article that they’re not against writers using AI-space adjacent tools to do preliminary research.
I think if that were the issue, they can say "We will maintain the same high quality standards which we expect throughout for all pieces". But that isn't what the article talks about, the article frames it as "standing up to the machine" and talks about how corporations talk about it. It ends on a John Henry comparison. Which seems not in line with the "We'll interact with it, but not have anything written directly by it" notion that this is describing.
>they want to make sure the finalized articles are handwritten and aren't chockful of LLM slophistry
This seems like a pretty reasonable perspective for a magazine. Use AI for ideation and research but not to create the final version of articles for publication.
I predict this is going to change soon similar to how "look at how bad AI is at coding" changed. I understand that we all feel like something with a soul should be doing this stuff and it feels wrong to read something that "no thought" was put into. But if it's able to write better and more informed (because it can research and integrate ideas many orders of magnitude faster) than some of the better writers I don't see why you would ever read the less informed, worse written version. We definitely aren't there yet but I don't see any reason why we won't get there. It's not like excellent writing is such an onerous task it can never be solved.
They wrote which things they're concerned about in the article. They included things like "Capitalists say it will replace workers", which, if you're a magazine intending to provide your own perspective, repeating the capitalist narrative but then inverting it and saying it's bad does, I think, suck as a narrative.
I'd agree with you if that was in fact the only thing they mentioned... but there was much more nuance and content than that in the article if you read the full thing.
For example, this raises the issue of a drop in quality and a change in publishing model - which is obviously quite different than parroting back an existing argument and saying its bad like you are suggesting.
> Even if you lost 60 percent of your readership, you might still make a lot more per story, because you can pump them out in seconds.
i think a lot of people have forgotten this. most tech people are so metrics pilled that it's impossible for them to fathom anything spiritually richer
Who said metrics? You are arguing against something you've made up so that you can grandstand. Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is empty is not a "spiritually rich" act.
FYI my response did include you originally, but i wasn't implying that you are spiritually defunct, just that thinking in terms of metrics _is_. Re-reading your comment I realize you were using the word metric in a different way anyway. But obviously i have no idea who you are and regardless of your particulars, the point i was making was broad sweeping based on my many years of experience in tech. Lots of people are spiritually dead, and I do think that a lot are so AI pilled that they're willing to trade in their humanity and entire brain if they could
Their parent comment did¹, as did the parent to that one² (i.e. you, who used the word “metric” twice), which is the top of the chain. So, in essence, everyone in the immediate conversation “said metrics”.
> Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is empty
That’s not what they did at all. You’re choosing that interpretation, you can choose a kinder one.
Fine, I said metric in the original comment when I could have said basis or notion or perspective. But I don't think my interpretation is the unkind one, here. They wrote "it's impossible for them to fathom anything spiritually richer", and I don't think it's unfair to characterize that as accusing others of being empty.
> I don't think it's unfair to characterize that as accusing others of
But you initially said:
> Implying that anyone who disagrees with you
That’s what I think is incorrect about your interpretation. “The majority of people in this field” and “anyone who disagrees with me” are wildly different statements. When they say “most tech people”, that could even include themselves¹ or close friends and family². Because crucially, none of us is one single thing, and we’re not a single thing all the time. Like, you can have an uncle who you feel is unimaginative and old-fashioned and crude but that you still believe tries to be a good person even if you disagree with them on how to go about it.
That’s what I mean when I say you could choose a kinder interpretation. And hey, I’m not perfect either, I have had my fair share of misinterpretations. But that’s exactly why I’m saying this to you right now, in the end we should help each other to come back to kindness. Maybe the person you responded to was trying to be rude, but I think there’s enough leeway to believe they were not, and that you can be happier if you take the comment in the best way.
Writing a moral into a narrative doesn't make it narrativeless. They're still saying something, and if what they're saying is wrong and missing the point, then just calling it a moral position doesn't make what's being argued any more real or the ideas any better.
the argument of "we should be using AI to make sure it's being properly evaluated when we have no other reason to" isn't a good one. it's a nonprofit whose sole purpose is to provide commentary on culture/politics. I don't need AI shoved in there. I want to read human written stuff and i'm more than happy to see publications/literary agents decide they don't want to use it. I'm tired of reading lazy slop, full stop. I hope this actually encourages the rest of society.
FYI this is written by someone who's fairly bullish on AI and uses it pretty frequently on a daily basis.
Really, a Nazi comparison? I said that I thought the narrative sucked and was undermining itself. The article was published and posted here, presumably for comment. Nobody said that their magazine should be banned or that they couldn't take some position, just that the position wasn't good.
In my opinion, the AI companies’ openly stated desire to eliminate any reason to live for hundreds of millions of people is something very Nazi in its nature.
Well, taking away the only profession hundreds of millions of people have (many of them don’t even have time left to switch to another one) - surely in many cases means taking away (stealing) their entire lifes.
It is not really a by-product. It is a direct and a very clear and easily understood consequence of what they are trying to achieve. My logic is valid.
