Why is everything labeled as AI now????? I can't even post a story anymore.

[metropolinational]

Then you're not just tossing a coin, you're tossing it down the drain.

There is value in confirming that something you believe sucked, actually sucked. Then, the suckitude is ameliorated by certitude.

 

[EmilyMiller]

again, I believe the whole ecosystem is a massive scam driven by a massive moral panic. AI, like the wheel, steam engines, and electricity, is here to stay. People need to stop panicking.

Last I checked the wheel wasn’t based on stolen property. I’m getting kinda sick of being told that finding GenAI problematic and limited in use cases is equivalent to being a Luddite (and the Luddites had a point too).

LLMs are a dead end technology with few use cases outside the wet dreams of broligarchs. We are constantly told they are getting better. Having ingested all human writing, I’d like to know how.

 

[metropolinational]

I’m getting kinda sick of being told that finding GenAI problematic and limited in use cases is equivalent to being a Luddite (and the Luddites had a point too).

I find AI problematic and very limited in use too. I find electricity problematic and limited in use, by the way.
I don't go around telling people that electricity is immoral, useless, or that we should go to extraordinary lengths to prevent people from using it. It's just a technology, like 1000 other technologies, that many people find useful but is certainly not going to be solve all of our problems or do everything for us. Most of our problems have nothing to do with technology.
I have no idea if you are a luddite or not. All I have said is that the moral panic about AI has to end. No idea if you are a part of it or not.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I find AI problematic and very limited in use too. I find electricity problematic and limited in use, by the way.
I don't go around telling people that electricity is immoral, useless, or that we should go to extraordinary lengths to prevent people from using it. It's just a technology, like 1000 other technologies, that many people find useful but is certainly not going to be solve all of our problems or do everything for us. Most of our problems have nothing to do with technology.
I have no idea if you are a luddite or not. All I have said is that the moral panic about AI has to end. No idea if you are a part of it or not.

I’m gonna follow @StillStunned’s sound advice.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I'm not sure what you are advocating here: a change of rules to allow AI, a change of policy where Lit doesn't conduct some sort of AI test, or what? Last I checked, Lit is privately owned, and Laural and Manu can set any rules they want.

I find AI problematic and very limited in use too. I find electricity problematic and limited in use, by the way.
I don't go around telling people that electricity is immoral, useless, or that we should go to extraordinary lengths to prevent people from using it. It's just a technology, like 1000 other technologies, that many people find useful but is certainly not going to be solve all of our problems or do everything for us. Most of our problems have nothing to do with technology.
I have no idea if you are a luddite or not. All I have said is that the moral panic about AI has to end. No idea if you are a part of it or not.

 

[metropolinational]

I'm not sure what you are advocating here: a change of rules to allow AI, a change of policy where Lit doesn't conduct some sort of AI test, or what? Last I checked, Lit is privately owned, and Laural and Manu can set any rules they want.

I agree Laurel and Manu can do whatever they want as the owners of the site.

It is my OPINION, that given the impossibility of accurately detecting AI, the site should change its policy, as follows:

1. Ban obvious AI crap. That means using the filters but raise the cutoff for what gets flagged. This should also reduce the number of submissions that need to be reviewed by hand.
2. Send automated messages to the author when their obvious AI crap is rejected, but make it clear that its due to obvious AI crap, not grammarly or whatever.
3. Review borderline cases by hand.
4. Refine process until authors who have accumulated hundreds of followers, favorites and comments are nerver flagged. Thats your negative control group. If you are flagging these people, you need to tweak your cutoff scores higher.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Suggest away, and expect the same response everyone else has had. You can ask the others what that response might be.

I agree Laurel and Manu can do whatever they want as the owners of the site.

It is my OPINION, that given the impossibility of accurately detecting AI, the site should change its policy, as follows:

1. Ban obvious AI crap. That means using the filters but raise the cutoff for what gets flagged. This should also reduce the number of submissions that need to be reviewed by hand.
2. Send automated messages to the author when their obvious AI crap is rejected, but make it clear that its due to obvious AI crap, not grammarly or whatever.
3. Review borderline cases by hand.
4. Refine process until authors who have accumulated hundreds of followers, favorites and comments are nerver flagged. Thats your negative control group. If you are flagging these people, you need to tweak your cutoff scores higher.

 

[metropolinational]

I was responding to you, @MillieDynamite, since you asked. I agree that we are screaming into the void.