My friend seems genuinely baffled that I am an AI researcher who refuses to use AI! Not only that, but I argue against it from theory, not experience. Why don't I just give it a try for a while, and see what it's really about before I judge it?
I guess I see where he's coming from. Part of the problem is the word "AI." LLMs are not my research focus, so it's less of a contradiction than it sounds. But I admit, being a non-user makes my arguments against LLMs less credible.
I just don't understand why I owe it to anybody to give AI a shot. I know how LLMs work in gory detail, and I don't trust them. I've seen the mediocre work they produce. I've read studies about the seductive illusion of competence and caring they create, and how people fall for that. I know it's all built on an incredibly exploitative business model.
I feel entirely justified in not giving them a chance. I guess I'm just as baffled by how badly he wants me to try it, and how sure he seems to be that it would change my mind.
reshared this
myrmepropagandist
in reply to Nate Gaylinn • • •It will only make him more annoyed if after you do (not saying you should) you are still not impressed.
I have tried it.
In good faith too. Let me see if I can make this work. Can it save me any time?
But the time savings are an illusion. I tried it for feedback on a poem and it was very flattering but then on reflection that felt hollow and I didn't want to trust the advice since... well I didn't write the poem for machine validation I write a poem to impress my friends.
Nate Gaylinn
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird Indeed. I'm also confused that he feels it's been such an improvement in his life! In our exchange, he let an LLM edit one of his replies. Not only did I spot it immediately, but it was noticeably worse than the rest of our dialog. "Hollow" is a good word for it.
There's no convincing him. And I wasn't trying to convince him, which is the weirdest part. He just got defensive and started trying to convince me...
myrmepropagandist
in reply to Nate Gaylinn • • •People are scared that people look down on them for leaning on this tech, he may have been using it much more in ways you don't know about.
I think that there is an impulse to hide the use kind of says everything. The shame isn't coming from other people, it's ones own self-respect saying that this is lazy, inconsiderate, hollow.
AI use guilt is real. And justified.
myrmepropagandist
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •I know of some one who asks AI things like "my co-worker asked me to cover for them, how do I say no without making them mad?"
It might be OK advice, but by using it one is avoiding the friction and danger of human interactions.
I get it. Social interactions are terrifying. But, if I use a machine to help me never make a "mistake" will anyone even know who I am anymore? I am an annoying person. That would be lost.
myrmepropagandist
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •I guess that's why doing that for an email to a boss seems less offensive than doing it for an email to a friend.
That said, I don't even really think the tech is very good at this type of thing. You will always need to proof-read and edit, and edit and edit.
By the time you are done it's the same process.
Unless you close your eyes and hit "send" and hope no one notices you sound like a creepy overly friendly creature from an advertisement. And some people are doing this.
Daniel Lakeland
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •My wife is incredibly much more productive if she starts with something on the page and can edit it. Almost all her scientific papers started out with me writing some bullshit about the topic and her then writing an entire paper about how wrong I was 😅 anyway now she outsources that to AI! AI took my job!
@ngaylinn
Zach Bennoui
in reply to Daniel Lakeland • • •