> ... I feel contempt for the author, because if you use AI to write, you are a waste of biomass. Let’s not mince words here. Someone who is so eager to replace themselves, that they would have a machine write in their stead, when the machine can’t even write good yet: what do you call that, if not contemptible? It’s like making yourself into a eunuch so Claude can fuck your wife.
Unfortunately due to how tasteless this passage was, I won’t be reading this or your future writing.
Alas, for rude, tasteless behavior, such as replacing your own authentic self-expression with the mellifluous spew of verbal diarrhea that bullshit machines slather across all surfaces they touch, rude, tasteless metaphors are the only fitting ones.
The only way people will get to self-expression that's worth hearing is by working their way through the self-expression that wasn't.
In a better world that would happen in school and as a normal part of growing up, but at least in the US, that mostly doesn't happen.
If humans use LLMs to write, it's much more likely they will never uncover the unique perspectives they could share with the world.
So, for those whose parents and teachers failed them, embracing, encouraging, and engaging their clumsy, self-centered rudeness is, I think, the best path forward.
Granted, when it is clumsy, self-centered, and rude, one of the more helpful things we can do is offer the critiques that clearly and coherently point that out, as you've done here.
...though I stand by my claim that using LLMs to write is actually deeply offensive and rude, a rejection of what it means to be human, and that it should be met with strong rejections.
We also probably need to lower our standards somewhat, if not for the only reason to allow ourselves to grow.
One of the best and worst things to ever happen to self-expression was the internet. While it exposes us to so many new ways of thinking, it can also be repressive in so many ways, not to mentions limits many of us from engaging with those in the immediate area. Also it holds onto our worst outputs forever!
You might see why I really like the point about embracing imperfect communication and expression for so many reasons.
I think it's fine to strongly reject non-human communication for certain (maybe even many purposes), but there are a lot of "production" type situations (boilerplate code, CRUD systems) that don't require a human grinding away at it, and humanity benefits from using it's time more wisely. Defining what is "intellectual" work versus this "repetitive" work is kinda tough, and it is probably different for everyone. There is a certain amount of grinding necessary, and some move through it faster than others.
Unfortunately, due to how rude this comment was, I won't be reading this or your future writing.
Because obviously someone who is rude must be wrong about everything. If someone calls someone a waste of biomass, by the rule of conservation of insults that must imply they are not one. Also we must be civil and polite to people who are destroying civilization.
Tastelessness aside, it also shows that author doesn’t (or refuses to) understand why someone may decide to delegate a documentation task to a subpar agent.
Laziness.
Yes, conceptually it’s something about surrendering one’s voice and agency to a subpar machine. Or something like that. (Though that persistence-suggestive neutering metaphor is probably a unwarranted exaggeration.) In practice though it’s more like “I don’t want to write anything, but some poorly written document I’ll just proofread to be not too blatantly wrong beats having absolutely nothing. PRs welcome.”
It might be not the best decision, sure. Quite arguably, a wrong one. Still, I find it concerning that it’s sufficient for the author to dehumanize someone, even in a jest of edginess. Like wtf dude chill down, as if the world isn’t mad enough already.
But the problem is people are not just delegating formulaic procedural prose to AI. They're using AI to write entire scientific papers, so now reviewers have to use Pangram[0] to screen submissions. Literary magazines have the same problem[1]. Maybe those people should know that their behaviour is bad.
Ah, yes, although that’s a different situation from the linked post, more disrespectful (and potentially nefarious) than a sloppy readme. In those cases, most likely, more than just laziness is involved.
Arguably, someone who has chosen to replace their own human expression with machine words has already dehumanized themselves - although this is perhaps a too-literal reading the word “dehumanized”?
I very explicitly tried to separate this third-party perception and actual first-party intent. Well, my guess of it, of course - but I find it hard to believe someone decides to LARP Adeptus Mechanicus and goes along the lines of “why don’t I cede my voice to the Machine Spirit”, while “why don’t I task this tool to write notes instead of doing it myself” is a lot more plausible.
Choices and outcomes are two very different things.
Unfortunately due to how tasteless this passage was, I won’t be reading this or your future writing.