myrmepropagandistFeb 4

My general dislike of AI writing has had a positive impact on how I read and listen to texts and scripts.

If I'm listening to a nature video, for example, and a sentence is empty of meaning or just illogical I turn that video off and avoid whoever made it.

Some of the things I've rejected probably weren't made by AI, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

My main issue with AI texts is I just find them kind of patronizing? You want me to sit and nicely listen but you can't be bothered to write?

Show threadOrange Lantern   Feb 4
@futurebird Well, I like to say „if nothing else, GenAI has teached me how little people pay attention to creative work.“

They don’t notice extra fingers or floating trees, they don’t notice badly written texts.
Working in media for years I basically knew that, but LLMs hammered home the point.

If that in turn leads to people actually looking at things, it’s hard to complain, though.
Show threadmyrmepropagandistFeb 4

@orangelantern

The extra fingers don't bother me as the lack of coherence. Here is a sentence that really turned me off:

"The balance of salt and fresh water in the body of the cone snail is an essential equilibrium between concentrations of water."

????

I can infer what the training texts that made this might have said: the interesting information about how snails can survive in a salty environment while land snails are sensitive to salt. But, this is saying next to nothing.

Show threadKevin Granade
@orangelantern @futurebird I mean, you have to give that an incredibly creative reading to even call it anything resembling reality.
Is there salt water in cone snails? No
Is there fresh water in cone snails? No
It starts at completely wrong and gets worse from there.
Feb 4 at 10:35pmWeb
Show threadmyrmepropagandistFeb 4

@kevingranade @orangelantern

As person who knows only a smattering of facts about cone snails this sentence first made me feel like my reading comprehension was getting worse... then just disgusted.