5 ms·

Maybe that works for pure entertainment. I buy a lot of books, including a lot of nonfiction. I care quite a bit about the author. There's a lot of garbage out

by _jal 3y ago

Maybe that works for pure entertainment. I buy a lot of books, including a lot of nonfiction. I care quite a bit about the author. There's a lot of garbage out there with just flat wrong information. One of the few things you have to go on is an author's reputation. Which, if you're making that up, becomes a garbage signal, and something approaching fraud. So for now at least, any outfit that publishes something that's supposed to be informative that's demonstrated to be "genai" derived means they've utterly lost my trust, and I won't be buying from them anymore. There's also an ancillary issue I've never heard a good answer to. If you are publishing "genai" output, why would I pay you for it? I'll just ask GPT4 myself and not pay your cut. If the answer is, "because we larded it up with all the signals that make it look like a human wrote it", well, see above about fraud.

beandgaethje 3y ago
GenAi is a tool like any other. If an author has been able to build earn my trust, I’d trust them to use the genai tool responsibly as well. This includes being ultimately responsible for the veracity of any claims made. If the facts end up being wrong, they’d lose my trust regardless of whether genai is in the loop or not. This abstracts to a publisher or company level as well. For now, gen ai has enough issues that a human should probably be in the loop, either as a collaborating author or editor. At some point, that will probably change and that is okay with me. You also make a good point about why buy books. Perhaps at some point gen ai will be good enough to generate high quality, true, and personalized info such that we won’t have to! The fraud issue is interesting. I personally disclose when I use genai. But I wouldn’t be offended if someone else didn’t. Again, if I trust someone, I trust them to use the tool responsible. If I don’t, I’d take what they say with a grain of salt anyway.

by _jal 3y ago

beandgaethje 3y ago

GenAi is a tool like any other. If an author has been able to build earn my trust, I’d trust them to use the genai tool responsibly as well. This includes being ultimately responsible for the veracity of any claims made. If the facts end up being wrong, they’d lose my trust regardless of whether genai is in the loop or not. This abstracts to a publisher or company level as well. For now, gen ai has enough issues that a human should probably be in the loop, either as a collaborating author or editor. At some point, that will probably change and that is okay with me. You also make a good point about why buy books. Perhaps at some point gen ai will be good enough to generate high quality, true, and personalized info such that we won’t have to! The fraud issue is interesting. I personally disclose when I use genai. But I wouldn’t be offended if someone else didn’t. Again, if I trust someone, I trust them to use the tool responsible. If I don’t, I’d take what they say with a grain of salt anyway.