I actually deleted youtube from my phone a while ago, because every other video was like the one you described of flat boring screenreader guys reading off an obvious ai(edited) script.
But still, I do use ai almost every workday, mostly for very narrow and very specific one-off things I want. Two recent examples are the crafting of a comprehensive overview of all kinds of literature forms, genres, styles, and such + author examples I could read for each of the types and another things was producing the HTML+CSS for a quiz (quiz contents I made myself). But I won't ever use it for writing my essays or fiction or for thinking for me.
Still, I have been lured in previously in sharing more than I actually want with LLM's and since then (the start of the year) I have taken to creating a new account every month because I got tired of LLM's trying/asking to do the thinking for me and bringing in the context of other conversations I had with it.
Anyway, long story short. Yes, I think it is immensely dangerous to wield, and every time I do I am cognisant of it being a trade-off between efficiency and soul. It's why I think it shouldn't be used for soul-filled/tasteful/art works.
And also why I think it's good to have some distance between a human and the LLM's, also why I hate human-level voice in ai. Please just give me the robotic voice so my subconscious doesn't get tricked into, for a fraction of a second, thinking I'm listening to a human.
Ok, well, I'm not trying to wield AI at all because I'm just a little hobbit who can recognize a tool of Sauron when she sees it. Maybe that will put me behind on work and maybe that will make me a worse writer and certainly it will make me out of touch with society, but I don't care. I'm not going to pick up the ring, because I'm weak and it's evil.
hmmm I feel like I have to break this rule I use a pen name because my identity is precious, The thing about rules is that AI can't break the one cardinal rule I have found which is a paradox. You would figure people would actually get that but no they don't listen all of the power at our finger tips and some nerdie girl with bubblegum is probably hacking it with some protocol's of the statement as such:
This statement is true,
The above statement is false,
In classical computing the system of 1s and 0s is absolutely binary in ancient greece mathematicians studied paradoxes in particular the liar's paradox and such were used with great hysterical affect to prove that you cannot lie to yourself without proving the paradox wrong which in and of itself IS A PARADOX. For some context when you have a system that has half a decimal of a defense for paradoxes that not a very strong defense for a network that can be brought down by a couple of hackers living all over the world... Just saying food for thought.
I found your post difficult to read and comprehend. I read it twice and, in doing so, felt the beginnings of a migraine.
So, I employed two LLMs to help me understand what the fuck you were saying. the results are below.
To ChatGPT:
Take a look at this content and clean it up improving grammar, capitalization, punctuation, syntax, and clarity of thought:
hmmm I feel like I have to break this rule I use a pen name because my identity is precious, The thing about rules is that AI can't break the one cardinal rule I have found which is a paradox. You would figure people would actually get that but no they don't listen all of the power at our finger tips and some nerdie girl with bubblegum is probably hacking it with some protocol's of the statement as such:
This statement is true,
The above statement is false,
In classical computing the system of 1s and 0s is absolutely binary in ancient greece mathematicians studied paradoxes in particular the liar's paradox and such were used with great hysterical affect to prove that you cannot lie to yourself without proving the paradox wrong which in and of itself IS A PARADOX. For some context when you have a system that has half a decimal of a defense for paradoxes that not a very strong defense for a network that can be brought down by a couple of hackers living all over the world... Just saying food for thought.
From ChatGPT:
Hmm. I feel as though I have to break this rule. I use a pen name because my identity is precious to me.
The strange thing about rules is that AI cannot break the one cardinal rule I have discovered—a rule that is itself a paradox. You would think people would understand that, but they do not listen. We have all this power at our fingertips, and somewhere, some nerdy girl chewing bubble gum is probably hacking it with a protocol built around statements like these:
“This statement is true.”
“The statement above is false.”
In classical computing, the system of ones and zeros is strictly binary. In ancient Greece, mathematicians and philosophers studied paradoxes, particularly the liar’s paradox. Such paradoxes were used, often to great rhetorical effect, to demonstrate that you cannot lie to yourself without creating a contradiction. Yet attempting to prove the paradox wrong produces another paradox.
For context, when a system has only half a decimal point’s worth of defense against paradoxes, that is not much protection for a network that could potentially be brought down by a handful of hackers scattered across the world.
Just saying. Food for thought.
*******************
Sent the same command to Grok.
From Grok:
Hmm, I feel like I have to break this rule. I use a pen name because my identity is precious. The thing about rules is that AI can’t break the one cardinal rule I’ve found—which is itself a paradox. You’d think people would actually get that, but no, they don’t listen. All that power at our fingertips, and some nerdy girl with bubblegum is probably hacking it with some protocol of the statement as such:
This statement is true.
The above statement is false.
In classical computing, the system of 1s and 0s is absolutely binary. In ancient Greece, mathematicians studied paradoxes—particularly the liar’s paradox—and used them with great hysterical effect to prove that you cannot lie to yourself without proving the paradox wrong… which is, in and of itself, a paradox. For some context: when you have a system that has only half a decimal of defense against paradoxes, that’s not a very strong defense for a network that can be brought down by a couple of hackers scattered all over the world.
Just saying. Food for thought.
your first problem was using AI to get an answer your 2nd problem is directly tied to the answer in the first problem put the phone down and use a book and look up the definition of a paradox youll feel better about it
I used AI to turn something that was poorly written into something that I could read without giving myself a migraine.
In other words, I used it to proofread and edit *your*writing.
I don’t use a phone as anything other than a spoken communication tool (wrong assumption on your part).
If you think I don’t understand the meaning of PARADOX (and paradox), well, that’s another wrong assumption on your part.
As to your second reply, again, your post was so poorly written I used AI as a convenience tool for me to read your post without risking the need for alcohol before Noon.
If it helps, just think of it as a translation device - it didn’t change your content - it simply translated it into my prefer language - Standard English.
As far as “picking up a book,” I would suggest you indeed do that - perhaps starting with Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition.
I would also urge you to pick up the book gotcha by Martin Gardner he goes in depth on what paradoxes are. Incidentally if you can't refute the statement then you prove that you have lost the argument.
We learned to talk to machines before we learned to talk to all the animals.
For me it is the last bastion. We let it track our bodies. Our purchases. Our likes and subscribes. Our network. Now we let it into our very thoughts? What is left? The net is complete. And we all clamor, at least we have being left! But wordsmiths are already working on that as well.
I actually deleted youtube from my phone a while ago, because every other video was like the one you described of flat boring screenreader guys reading off an obvious ai(edited) script.
But still, I do use ai almost every workday, mostly for very narrow and very specific one-off things I want. Two recent examples are the crafting of a comprehensive overview of all kinds of literature forms, genres, styles, and such + author examples I could read for each of the types and another things was producing the HTML+CSS for a quiz (quiz contents I made myself). But I won't ever use it for writing my essays or fiction or for thinking for me.
Still, I have been lured in previously in sharing more than I actually want with LLM's and since then (the start of the year) I have taken to creating a new account every month because I got tired of LLM's trying/asking to do the thinking for me and bringing in the context of other conversations I had with it.
Anyway, long story short. Yes, I think it is immensely dangerous to wield, and every time I do I am cognisant of it being a trade-off between efficiency and soul. It's why I think it shouldn't be used for soul-filled/tasteful/art works.
And also why I think it's good to have some distance between a human and the LLM's, also why I hate human-level voice in ai. Please just give me the robotic voice so my subconscious doesn't get tricked into, for a fraction of a second, thinking I'm listening to a human.
Ok, well, I'm not trying to wield AI at all because I'm just a little hobbit who can recognize a tool of Sauron when she sees it. Maybe that will put me behind on work and maybe that will make me a worse writer and certainly it will make me out of touch with society, but I don't care. I'm not going to pick up the ring, because I'm weak and it's evil.
If only we had definitive magisterial teaching to help us navigate these times
Nicely put. 🙏🏽💙👍
Excellent metaphor… my precious.
Outstanding metaphor. And in my opinion plainly correct.
hmmm I feel like I have to break this rule I use a pen name because my identity is precious, The thing about rules is that AI can't break the one cardinal rule I have found which is a paradox. You would figure people would actually get that but no they don't listen all of the power at our finger tips and some nerdie girl with bubblegum is probably hacking it with some protocol's of the statement as such:
This statement is true,
The above statement is false,
In classical computing the system of 1s and 0s is absolutely binary in ancient greece mathematicians studied paradoxes in particular the liar's paradox and such were used with great hysterical affect to prove that you cannot lie to yourself without proving the paradox wrong which in and of itself IS A PARADOX. For some context when you have a system that has half a decimal of a defense for paradoxes that not a very strong defense for a network that can be brought down by a couple of hackers living all over the world... Just saying food for thought.
Dear The Enlightened Writer,
I found your post difficult to read and comprehend. I read it twice and, in doing so, felt the beginnings of a migraine.
So, I employed two LLMs to help me understand what the fuck you were saying. the results are below.
To ChatGPT:
Take a look at this content and clean it up improving grammar, capitalization, punctuation, syntax, and clarity of thought:
hmmm I feel like I have to break this rule I use a pen name because my identity is precious, The thing about rules is that AI can't break the one cardinal rule I have found which is a paradox. You would figure people would actually get that but no they don't listen all of the power at our finger tips and some nerdie girl with bubblegum is probably hacking it with some protocol's of the statement as such:
This statement is true,
The above statement is false,
In classical computing the system of 1s and 0s is absolutely binary in ancient greece mathematicians studied paradoxes in particular the liar's paradox and such were used with great hysterical affect to prove that you cannot lie to yourself without proving the paradox wrong which in and of itself IS A PARADOX. For some context when you have a system that has half a decimal of a defense for paradoxes that not a very strong defense for a network that can be brought down by a couple of hackers living all over the world... Just saying food for thought.
From ChatGPT:
Hmm. I feel as though I have to break this rule. I use a pen name because my identity is precious to me.
The strange thing about rules is that AI cannot break the one cardinal rule I have discovered—a rule that is itself a paradox. You would think people would understand that, but they do not listen. We have all this power at our fingertips, and somewhere, some nerdy girl chewing bubble gum is probably hacking it with a protocol built around statements like these:
“This statement is true.”
“The statement above is false.”
In classical computing, the system of ones and zeros is strictly binary. In ancient Greece, mathematicians and philosophers studied paradoxes, particularly the liar’s paradox. Such paradoxes were used, often to great rhetorical effect, to demonstrate that you cannot lie to yourself without creating a contradiction. Yet attempting to prove the paradox wrong produces another paradox.
For context, when a system has only half a decimal point’s worth of defense against paradoxes, that is not much protection for a network that could potentially be brought down by a handful of hackers scattered across the world.
Just saying. Food for thought.
*******************
Sent the same command to Grok.
From Grok:
Hmm, I feel like I have to break this rule. I use a pen name because my identity is precious. The thing about rules is that AI can’t break the one cardinal rule I’ve found—which is itself a paradox. You’d think people would actually get that, but no, they don’t listen. All that power at our fingertips, and some nerdy girl with bubblegum is probably hacking it with some protocol of the statement as such:
This statement is true.
The above statement is false.
In classical computing, the system of 1s and 0s is absolutely binary. In ancient Greece, mathematicians studied paradoxes—particularly the liar’s paradox—and used them with great hysterical effect to prove that you cannot lie to yourself without proving the paradox wrong… which is, in and of itself, a paradox. For some context: when you have a system that has only half a decimal of defense against paradoxes, that’s not a very strong defense for a network that can be brought down by a couple of hackers scattered all over the world.
Just saying. Food for thought.
******************
Best,
Abra
your first problem was using AI to get an answer your 2nd problem is directly tied to the answer in the first problem put the phone down and use a book and look up the definition of a paradox youll feel better about it
incidentally that migraine has just proven my exact point AI has a flaw and it can't counteract paradoxes
Dear The Enlightened Writer,
I didn’t “use AI to get an answer.”
I used AI to turn something that was poorly written into something that I could read without giving myself a migraine.
In other words, I used it to proofread and edit *your*writing.
I don’t use a phone as anything other than a spoken communication tool (wrong assumption on your part).
If you think I don’t understand the meaning of PARADOX (and paradox), well, that’s another wrong assumption on your part.
As to your second reply, again, your post was so poorly written I used AI as a convenience tool for me to read your post without risking the need for alcohol before Noon.
If it helps, just think of it as a translation device - it didn’t change your content - it simply translated it into my prefer language - Standard English.
As far as “picking up a book,” I would suggest you indeed do that - perhaps starting with Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition.
Best,
Abra
yeah my grammar is kind of wonky but let me ask you? were you able to refute THIS statement?
This statement is true,
The above statement is false
I would also urge you to pick up the book gotcha by Martin Gardner he goes in depth on what paradoxes are. Incidentally if you can't refute the statement then you prove that you have lost the argument.
We learned to talk to machines before we learned to talk to all the animals.
For me it is the last bastion. We let it track our bodies. Our purchases. Our likes and subscribes. Our network. Now we let it into our very thoughts? What is left? The net is complete. And we all clamor, at least we have being left! But wordsmiths are already working on that as well.
Thank you for this. Your writing is wonderful.