I feel like this is more of a curation issue than an issue with using AI itself. If someone is using AI to distill information to the point where important context gets lost, then yeah, I think they are definitely doing it wrong.
What I often notice in pull request descriptions isn't necessarily a problem with them being written by AI. It's the lack of nuance. They don't tell me exactly what the author expects the reviewer to pay attention to, what might be risky, or where they would particularly value another set of eyes. Being able to articulate those things is far more important to me than whether AI was involved in writing the text.
I would also push back a little on the author's point about imperfections. Being able to say that imperfections are fine somewhat ignores the elephant in the room: bias. Bias can have very real consequences. The author may personally be more tolerant of variations or imperfections in writing, but that's not something we can realistically expect from everyone. I'm also not sure it's fair to put the burden of dealing with those biases entirely on the person doing the writing.
That's also why I keep coming back to the expectation of having a distinctive "voice." Not everyone has the same attachment to their writing voice in the first place. For some people, getting their ideas across clearly and being understood matters much more. If voice isn't something they particularly value or identify with, then insisting that they preserve it feels somewhat moot.
I feel like NMS is definitely catered to people who prefer to define their own way of having fun. There’s practically zero hand-holding. There isn’t much emphasis on narrative either, and the story is almost completely optional. It’s more about finding your own game within the game, where simply existing and exploring such a vast universe can be the whole point.
In that sense, I’d argue it’s almost more of an environment simulator than a traditional game. I can totally see why someone coming into it expecting a strong narrative, memorable characters, and lots of character development might end up disappointed.
For me, though, this is the game I keep coming back to. There’s just nothing quite like heading into a world that nobody has ever visited, with a pretty good chance that nobody else will ever visit it, and still leaving your little mark there.
In most cases where language is being used as a vehicle for exchanging ideas, isn't some degree of uniformity actually desirable for clarity? I personally wouldn't want instruction manuals to be full of colorful or highly individualized language, for instance.
That's not to say linguistic diversity is meaningless, but I would argue that this particular concern is fairly specialized and matters much more in literature and other creative forms of writing.
Linguistic diversity has been used as a casus belli, at least indirectly. It’s something that populations will take up arms for, so it’s probably worth tiptoeing around.
Human laguage is rich and expressive, matching human thought. The diversity is part of the expressiveness. Saying something in some poetic, or merely different way, is not just an inefficient or ambiguous/confusing way of saying the same thing, it's saying something else, and that something else cannot be expressed any other way.
A crayons-only, thumbs-only, Apple one-button-only, 1000 word vocabulary world is not efficient, it's poor.
Like I said, I'm not denying the value of expressiveness at all, nor am I suggesting that anyone who values it should ever be denied the ability to express themselves as they please.
I just feel that when people talk about linguistic diversity or having a distinctive "voice," they sometimes overlook the fact that many people simply don't have a strong attachment to those things. A lot of people are primarily concerned with getting their ideas across clearly, and many already struggle with that before they even have the capacity to worry about how expressive or distinctive their language is.
I don't think that makes their use of language somehow poorer or less human. It just means they have different priorities for what they need language to accomplish.
Sure, but we're building tools that will be able to figure out these ideas for us. They're not here yet, but what's the value of learning an idea if the promise of AI is actually fulfilled?
I don't understand the point you're making, it only comes off as misanthropic to me. We live in a world where humans are valued, and so is human culture. We educate ourselves to live richer lives and to have more fulfilling experiences. What has eventual superhuman AI to do with this?
Yeah, sorry -- there's definitely entertainment value in education, I don't mean to discount that. But a working AI means that there's no economic value.
This makes is sound like everything except a narrow slice of “creative forms” should be subject to a giant efficiency optimization. I’ve never noticed instruction manuals to be hard to understand because of colorful language, so I don’t believe we need to optimize further in that regard. Why stop with language? Shouldn’t every personality outside of “creative forms” be more standardized? Sure I want to laugh at comedians, but wouldn’t it be more efficient for us to work together if everyone had a totally fungible personality?
Engineers often reduce human interaction and creativity down to computer analogs like “exchanging data,” treat work and business as life’s raison d’etre and then we wonder why every car on the road is monochrome and we’re on the umpteenth Gardian of the Avangers film.
I completely agree with your critique here but I will say that I have had difficulty understanding pure math texts because of 'colorful' language -- e.g. "chattier" treatments of mathematical analysis. But I will also say that I'm glad such treatments of the material exist, partly because I know that what appeals to me doesn't appeal to others and these might be a valued resource for them, and because often pushing through and understanding texts that were difficult at first helps us to see the material from a different perspective. I think this optimization perspective squashes this possibility a bit when taken too far, as it usually is
There’s no universal answer. Like most things it’s highly subjective and some people will want the standardization line to be in a particular place than someone else. I for instance, love the standardization of programming and science research for the most part into one language but at the same time, I also feel terrible about languages that are hundreds or thousands of years old disappearing forever.
I think it was the Uplift series by David Brin that has an idea where the old galactic races all speak a perfect language that has no ambiguity, and because of that they have no poetry or jokes. What a great world to strive for. No I'll take the mess please FFS.
People joke about engineer types treating humans the same as machines, but really I see no excuse for even engineer types to get this wrong. It's a failure to recognize what the function or goal actually is, and then optimizing for the wrong thing.
> I think it was the Uplift series by David Brin that has an idea where the old galactic races all speak a perfect language that has no ambiguity, and because of that they have no poetry or jokes.
This definitely feels like an overgeneralization. For what it’s worth, there are plenty of people who don’t say "itadakimasu" at restaurants but would say it when they’re invited to someone’s home as a guest, for example. More people, however, seem to say "gochisousama deshita" (thank you for the food) when leaving, whether at a restaurant or someone’s home.
Some people do say "itadakimasu" out of habit even when they’re eating alone. They may have grown up with stricter manners around meals, to the point where it’s simply baked into their routine. But it’s far from universal. Dramas and other shows may make it seem more universal than it actually is, partly because saying it out loud is more performative and works better on screen.
I believe some places here in Washington are already using this type of solution. As someone with a relatively strong accent, to the point that it often confuses those cheap automated voice systems, I have mixed feelings about it.
On one hand, my accented English could be misunderstood. On the other hand, some of the more advanced systems might actually be able to recognize that I’m speaking Japanese right away, whereas a human operator may first have to figure out what language I’m speaking.
Considering that if I’m calling 911, I’m probably going to be panicked or at least dealing with something urgent, that could be one area where I see a real advantage.
A lot of LLM-based systems seem to be pretty good at detecting and handling many different languages, at least.
I cannot read this article, but this may be partly confused what this function by Carbyne does. If there is a flood of critical systems, it just plays an auto message "If this is about X, thank you and we know about it" if you called from the same area.
I don't remember from prior articles if at that point you just stay on the line, or if you need to press a button. It is not going through an AI voice call tree.
It says its main function is to recognize if the call is related to a previous incident already registered. If it is, then the AI provides an update on the matter, otherwise it directs the caller to a human
The way I've come to think about Blender, and to some extent other tools in the same space, is that being a master of the tool as an operator and having the artistic ability to create meaningful work are two different skills. The best artists often have a good balance of both, but plenty of people are much stronger in one area than the other.
Since Blender is free, I think it's attracted a lot of people whose strengths are heavily weighted toward one side or the other.
Going back to the soccer analogy, you might be incredibly good at kicking the ball, but playing competitively and making meaningful plays on the field requires a completely different set of skills.
I'm a Vtuber myself. I'm an indie, self supported, just for fun type rather than someone trying to make a living from it.
If you're genuinely interested in becoming a Vtuber, the barrier to entry is surprisingly low. You don't necessarily need to commission a custom model or a unique character design. You can use one of the VR avatar generators, which is what my avatar is based on, or even start with a modified VR avatar if its license allows it. That's actually a pretty common approach in the indie scene.
As the article mentions, the market is definitely saturated, so I wouldn't go into it expecting to make a lot of money. For what it's worth, a large number of Vtubers don't even meet YouTube's monetization threshold. Personally, I think that's part of what makes the community interesting. I tend to enjoy following smaller creators more than the big agency names.
One thing I'd add is that I think the article overgeneralizes the AI topic a bit and leans more toward wishful thinking. A lot of the hesitation around AI, especially at major agencies, comes from the fact that their character designs are often commissioned from well known artists. That creates a relationship between the performer and the artist, often referred to as the "Mama" or "Papa" relationship, and there can be a lot of sensitivity around how those designs are used. To be fair, those dynamics can show up in plenty of situations besides AI.
If you don't have those constraints, people tend to be much more relaxed about AI. Some creators who rely heavily on fan art are naturally more opinionated about it than others, but it really varies from person to person.
> In general they also don't seem to collaborate much with vtubers outside of their space, so I'm sure there are some rules in play there.
I think it's more about market dynamics than strict rules.
There are clear benefits to collaborating within the same agency because it helps introduce audiences to other talents under the same umbrella. Everyone involved has a chance to grow together.
Once you start collaborating outside the agency, you're inevitably splitting viewers' time, attention, and even spending across different groups. Since every fan only has so much time and money to go around, those collaborations don't always make business sense.
That's not to say they never happen. If a collaboration is expected to bring in new audiences, significantly increase exposure, or otherwise benefit both sides, then it's much easier to justify. But without that kind of upside, it can end up helping another agency just as much, or even more, than your own.
What I often notice in pull request descriptions isn't necessarily a problem with them being written by AI. It's the lack of nuance. They don't tell me exactly what the author expects the reviewer to pay attention to, what might be risky, or where they would particularly value another set of eyes. Being able to articulate those things is far more important to me than whether AI was involved in writing the text.
I would also push back a little on the author's point about imperfections. Being able to say that imperfections are fine somewhat ignores the elephant in the room: bias. Bias can have very real consequences. The author may personally be more tolerant of variations or imperfections in writing, but that's not something we can realistically expect from everyone. I'm also not sure it's fair to put the burden of dealing with those biases entirely on the person doing the writing.
That's also why I keep coming back to the expectation of having a distinctive "voice." Not everyone has the same attachment to their writing voice in the first place. For some people, getting their ideas across clearly and being understood matters much more. If voice isn't something they particularly value or identify with, then insisting that they preserve it feels somewhat moot.