I buy products that explicitly mention their quality differentiation, this is no different than “100% Made in USA” or "100% Grass Fed Beef." That’s literally how a free market and value discovery is supposed to work with available information. Provide price, contents, value proposition, the consumer evaluates value received.
If I want slop, I have my own Claude subscription. I’m willing to pay for hand crafted, artisanal knowledge and thought products, not someone else's margin spread between their token costs and their prices. “Vote with your wallet.”
The difference is "100% Made in the USA" does not usually offend most people (it may do if you find it written on a twisted piece of metal where your village used to be)
On the other hand "All USA , no foreigners made this" might offend some.
"No Belgians were involved in making this product" might be found to be more offensive. Yet consistent with "100% Made in the USA".
The distinction is in what they are broadcasting with their message.
I would say the vast majority of people outside a tech bubble will not be offended by "we didn't use AI to write any of this" (the converse might be true though!)
As other people have said, if I wanted AI slop I'd just ask Claude.
Can you share why it would be offensive to not want to pay for LLM produced content in this context? Who might this offend? And why would it offend them?
I'm not "anti clanker" per se but I also don't have strong feelings about when and where this appliance is used. It is an appliance and tool, not a person, not a consciousness. For those who prefer machine generated content, that is a preference one can have.
I don't think I ever suggested that it would be offensive to not want to pay for LLM produced content. I certainly don't think that it should be offensive.
I have only been noting that declarations of position that come across as moral judgements of others can offend people.
No, I was responding to the question of why people might be offended by a statement that implies that they are morally deficient.
That there are plenty of people prepared to add their own claims of moral deficiency to this thread makes it seem like there is certainly an atmosphere where a statement like that can be interpreted in that manner.
> I have only been noting that declarations of position that come across as moral judgements of others can offend people.
Anything can offend people if the people choose to be offended. And yes, all moral judgments can be offensive to some people, but that doesn't mean we abandon all morals and never take a stand on anything. As long as you're not actively hurting or intentionally offending people, it is okay to have your own moral stance.
In fact, getting offended by someone else's virtue system shows a lack of one in the first place imo.
Again, it is not the virtue system that people find offensive. It is the expression of it in a manner that suggests that others are virtuous is the thing that is offensive.
If you extend your logic to expression of virtues in that manner, then you should fully accept the behaviour of the Westboro Baptist church as unoffensive.
> It is the expression of it in a manner that suggests that others are virtuous is the thing that is offensive.
I don't find Westboro Baptist Church's behavior virtuous, and I don't care how they express it. I'm not offended by their existence; I just think they're insane.
Why would them calling themselves virtuous offend me? If it did, it would imply that I believe my sense of virtue is "better" than their sense of virtue? In that case, isn't virtue signaling what I'm doing also? I don't need to do that and get offended for no reason.
Why will I care about the expression of something I don't respect? Being offended means caring about their opinions so much that I let them into my mind. That moral outrage, expressed as being offended, serves no purpose for the individual other than perverse enjoyment in feeling they are "truly" virtuous themselves.
You don't have to care about it, but it does put your opinion at odds with the vast majority of people. They have been labelled "The most hated family in America" With a documentary about them even carrying that title. It is precisely their expression of their beliefs that people find offensive. If they believed the same thing and did not publicly express it in a way that targets others as unvirtuous people would merely disrespect them. People find them offensive because they are not choosing how to live their lives but proclaiming how others should live theirs. The amplitude with which they do that is how they earned their 'most hated' title. The principle remains at lower amplitudes, the offence just has a smaller reach.
> I have my own Claude subscription. I’m willing to pay for hand crafted, artisanal knowledge and thought products. “Vote with your wallet.”
Soon you'll be able to buy hand-crafted, artisanal knowledge and thought-derived prompts for your Claude subscription just like you used to buy hand-crafted, artisanal knowledge and thought-derived code for your computer.
Are prompts covered by copyright? Will we see "Prompt copying is killing the prompt industry - and it's illegal" on the prompt delivery service site?
> Soon you'll be able to buy hand-crafted, artisanal knowledge and thought-derived prompts for your Claude subscription just like you used to buy hand-crafted, artisanal knowledge and thought-derived code for your computer.
I'm unsure Claude will be out there observing and reporting in meat space. "Three months maybe, six months definitely." LLMs and inference only sees what it can access digitally. It doesn't see or experience outside of the aquarium. How much does a goldfish in a bowl know about the world? Only about as far as it can see.
Human content when I want a human perspective, search engine results when I want a search engine for a lossy jpeg of the internet (or a sausage machine pushing tokens through a formal proof based or test driven system).
> LLMs and inference only sees what it can access digitally. It doesn't see or experience outside of the aquarium. How much does a goldfish in a bowl know about the world? Only about as far as it can see.
Most of the (Western?) world is covered in cameras, and I bet the video feeds will soon be feed into the training pipelines. And then as soon as AI is put in control of things like traffic lights, self-driving cars, logistics (e.g., delivery scheduling), then the AI will have a complete loop from which to learn: try something in the real world ("shorten this traffic light by 15s"), observe result ("traffic backs up Wednesdays at 8am"), repeat.
Surely this will teach the machine to love, feel, understand, and self reflect|actualize. The subthread context was human generated content, not machine learning for logistics and meat space Factorio (which good 'ol machine learning already did fine at).
If I want slop, I have my own Claude subscription. I’m willing to pay for hand crafted, artisanal knowledge and thought products, not someone else's margin spread between their token costs and their prices. “Vote with your wallet.”