RE: "AI content is too easy"
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Can AI do things better and more easily than a person? If the answer is 'yes' then it doesn't matter how much effort was put into the output.
This perfectly sums up your article and it's something a lot of people are finding difficult to understand: if an AI generates a good article, why should we ignore it? If someone put a lot of effort in his/her writing, but the result is poor and of little interest, why should we reward him/her? Having more spare time, I could write all day long about whatever I want... my dinner, my health, my dogs, my shoes... would these posts have value only because I spent hours writing them? Would they help Hive get noticed and become mainstream? The short answer is "no". And, on the other hand, if an AI can write a well-written post about an interesting topic, using the right language, adapting its lenght to the target audience and making it x100 better of posts about my (not so interesting) shoes, wouldn't it be better for everyone?
A big mistale people are doing about this topic is, imho, thinking that using an AI to write a good post is easy... and this is completely wrong, at least if for good we mean something that doesn't look like it was taken from a dictionary saying over and over the same thing using different words.
Have people ever tried using Dall-E or Midjourney (or other text-to-image AIs)? Sure, everyone can get a decent result, but getting an awesome result, genereting exactly what you had in mind is hard, incredibily hard.
The same applies to text-to-text AIs: making them writing something that is good and have its own personality, making it looks more "human", it's not easy. You have to know how to talk to the AI, you have to teach them, you have to learn a lot before being able to master them.
The problems are both people which would love to use AI to abuse the sistem (writing tons of useless articles without having any ability in using an AI) and people unable to understand something that is new and different: people always have fear of what is different, and this isn't something good.
Sorry for the long comment and for my poor english.
Everything ai writes is hollow imitation
No soul inside, not even a thought
AI does not understand anything, not even concepts
If you only want to read that, that's ur thing then
But if everyone Acts like that, human progress just stops
Goodbye knowledge, philosophy, gnosis
Hello repetition of status quo
AI has no soul, that's right. But, what is soul? Do you see the soul?
Do your PC understand something? Has soul? No, but, you use it, right? Why? Why you don't use a pen, but, you use the fastest keyboard, mouse, the fastest maybe CPU and RAM, an other things. Ah, you use a printer to print your stuff, idea, why? Why not use a pen?
AI is nothing else as you PC is, without you, or your asking the PC to make something, your PC is totally dumb machine. AI is the same.
PC = tool to make things extremely faster (and we use it, all of us here)
AI = tool to write/make things (art, text, etc.) much faster (and we will all use it, in a couple of months)
So, why we use it? Ah, you don't known yet? So, look at bing, look at google, they implement in the next days the AI in their search engines too, sooo... what should we do then? No search at all with these? Hmm, lets see how this would work, every one has this search engines in their pockets, mobiles, soo, explain how will be done?
It is sad to see here people compare AI with the movies. We have the movies scenarios here, without AI too, and long time ago it is all started, no matter of AI. It is started with the first PC revolution.
It is the same like with every other technology, the same is happens when the first tractor was there, why why should use tractors, because, we have horses, who do the same job, but, million times slower. And other technology too, cars, for example, it was the same, why use the cars, because, we have horses, no need for cars... and today? everyone has at least one car, if not more.
So, this is all bulsshit here about fear, that AI will destroy all of our world - the world is already destroyed - you voted for the psychopaths, that destroys the world - right now, without AI.
Ah, but, yes, these "psychopaths (politicians)" you voted for, they have SOUL, you say? THEY destroy our world, right now, - not AI.
What if AI is opposite, what if it helps us to be awaken? Not the AI from today, but in near future, when it is mature? What if AI will be a weapon to protect our self, to protect humanity from these psychopaths? What if it will serve us for good, not just for bad (like all con AI people here just have in mind the hollywood bullshit movies about AI destroying the world)? Just think about, who destroys right now the world and humanity?
At the moment, AI it serve us for good, to create fast text, art images, and match more. So what now? Should we ban AI just because it has no soul? You PC has no soul too, so ban it?
What if AI will have sentence, and "soul" in the near future? Because, soul is something you can decide yourself, and you don't see the soul, it is just an imagery in our brain, that WE have soul, but, do you decide every time the RIGHT thing? Do we decide every time the RIGHT thing? We think so, but other maybe think is totally wrong what we decide to do, or make. What if AI will help us to decide much faster the right thing?
So, the AI now is just a tool to make our jobs easier, because, without our questions, AI do nothing for us, just like your PC - it just help to do jobs much faster, so, why we use PC, and not pen, to write here the comments right now? Because, PC is much faster as the pen and the internet is much faster to send messages as the letters over the post, so, it should not be considered as it deserve value, , because, PC and internet is fast, right? Why we earn then here Hive with PC, and not with pen and sending letter over post?
You see, it is going nowhere, and AI is here to stay, like all other thing, if we like it or not.
I aslo just asked an other user here before reading your answer and I agree with you: people are completely missing the fact that AIs are TOOLS, like a pen or a pc, and anyone has ever said "this is not your work because you used a TOOL to do it".
The reasons because people are missing this, ihmo, are because:
Yes, exactly, I'm 100% on your side. That's the way it should go on. But not abusing people here, like HW is doing now.
Shouldn't we reward the AI for creating such great article then, and not the user?
Most common's today AIs (like GPT) aren't able to generate anything without a human input, so their product is still the effort of a human, which should be rewarded for his/her ability to give the right inputs to the AI.
I think the biggest misunderstandment is that making an AI write something good is easy: AI can easily generate a "decent" article, but making them realize something really good is a completely different matter.
Maybe first we should learn to distinguish "good" content, from only "decent" content; then we should start rewarding people producing something above average, instead of asking ourselves if the author has written it with the help of a pen, or a pc, or an AI.
AIs are nothing more than an instrument and they should be treated accordingly.
I should point out that people asking an AI to write something about a subject, without telling the AI anything more, aren't writing something good, but only gathering some data. This is not good content. This could also be classified as plagiarism.
On the other hand, people using an AI to better express their opinion and to boost their productivity, hence producing better content, in my eyes, are 100% worth all the rewards they can get.
Everything is IHMO.
I am sorry, but I do not consider writing a line of text to in get 1000 word essay an effort. Even if it is a few lines of text to get more complex answer. It is still a prompt and the text is still written by an AI, that then is published in a post. I could do that every day, but I would is still not be the author of the essay, it is not my thoughts that everyone will read and maybe reward.
So, do we reward the user that asked AI the right question and copied the result, or the bot that wrote 1000 words as an answer?
Exactly. Rewarding people, not algorithm that writes based on what they can find online.
I think you are trying to show that some AI posts are more interesting than others written by a human. I agree that some might be more informative and put together in a better way. But it is still not authors experience, knowledge and thoughts. And on Hive its the authors that get the rewards.
If they use AI to help them find information faster, or give some clues about topic, so that they can write (on their own) text that makes sense - sure, use it. It is there to be used. But if they use it to write a few prompts, then copy what the AI wrote for them and publish it without any mention that it was written by a bot, than it is just plain cheating the readers and curators. No matter how interesting the article is.
Now let's imagine that everyone on Hive agrees that AI pots are cool and everyone is welcome to post anything AI creates for them. Can you imagine how the feed will look like in few months, or a year? And how hard it will be to find a real, human written post in all the similarly looking articles.
How it will look like to someone from the outside that opens Hive for the first time and what will they think this place is.
I completely agree with you and this is something that no one should quaestion.
If a 4/5 lines prompt, with little to no variations, is enough to generate all kind of texts, the result couldn't be the personal point of view of the author on the subject, but it will clearly be a collection of data gathered by the AI.
A post like this wouldn't be (almost certainly) worth any rewards.
I think that this is the most crucial part of this argument about AI: people are talking about AI as they couldn't be used for ANYTHING.
I do not think that the use of AIs should be completely unregulated, but, on the other hand, I also do not think that the use of AIs should be forbidden.
If someone uses an AI to translate his/her own text, this should be ok.
If someone uses an AI to collect data or ideas for his/her post, this also should be ok.
If someone uses an AI to check his/her writing for errors, mispellings or improper use of language, even this should be ok.
So, if someone uses an AI to write in a better form his/her thoughts, asking the AI to check the text for mistakes, reword it where needed with a more informal tone (for example) and short sentences if too long or verbose, this should be ok, as the AI is only doing what a lot of different tools already allow (like most online translators). Only, it will be doing it better, giving the author a lot more control, as an AI can be trained to do exactly what you want.
Paradoxically AIs, if used properly, will give an author more control on his/her work and allow him/her to focus more on what he/she wants to say, breaking all linguistic and educational barriers.
This is what I mean when I talk about people who know "how" to use an AI.
This is why I think we should focus on regulating the use of AIs.
AIs are the future: we can like them or not, but they are clearly here to stay and become a vital part of our lives.
No one can stop that.
But what we can do it's to choose how they should be used.
Let's all talk together and find what is right and what is wrong... because only a few things in the world are totally good or bad, and AIs aren't clearly one of them (at least untill our Lord AI Skynet will enslave as all! !LOL )