Also, what’s his problem with the “Witch Priestess from the North?”
EDIT: Oh, the blue backgrounds are links. https://jacobfilipp.com/new-lord/
It isn’t?
^ at the bottom of the article
that seems pretty ripe for a new Geldof / Bono combo to use thinking they are doing good
The reality is people don't always care if a human poured their heart and soul into something. Sometimes they do, but not always.
It's like lamented handwritten script when the printing press was invented....
That's fine, but I don't think the author would suggest writing e.g. library documentation by hand. It's clearly advice for the creator side of the problem of low signal-to-noise ratio in the digital space and how to stand out/signal, rather than a general rule
When someone takes the laborious effort to provide a short paragraph on an insanely complex topic, precisely written without excessive hedging or jargon, and conveying a shortcut or mental model, I know they worked hard on it. That is still a valuable signal. No amount of fancy medium can top a well-framed idea concisely stated.
An infant scrawling the alphabet in its own excrement would have that "signal"...
I'm not sure how much actual advice one can take from this essay though beyond "use personal commitment (e.g. time or presence) to signal importance/care" and "go offline" (aka touch grass)
Some of his examples were tongue in cheek. But even handwriting feels a little too laborious when what we lost that needs replacement is manual typing.
Typewriters?
I've also started noticing people annotating a whole doc "written by humans" to try to convey effort and care. That's fine for some things but do that too often and a reader will be left with two thoughts:
1. Did they actually write this by hand? No way 2. Should they have written some of this with AI? Seems like a waste of time formatting some of this when they could've been spending their time thinking critically
now more than ever can fake it
I would go further and quantify how much of the message is AI in situations where humans edit it.
There is no proof, only evidence. The best evidence is consistency of action and attitude. Those who've always cared, even before AI, will likely continue to care after AI, and those who did not care before AI will likely continue not to care. Also, if a person consistently expresses contempt for AI, that's a pretty good indicator they don't use AI. One could of course use AI to write anti-AI screeds repeatedly... but why?
Generally speaking the ones that do care are those that also hope their own creations are/will be appreciated by people that similarly pour their heart into them, and they really don't understand that most people just see things for what they as consumers get out of them.
On some level writing on the net now is for an AI audience anyway. (Greetings fellow bots).
pbronez•1h ago