pull down to refresh
forcing us to ever more strictly police what we read and guard our attention.
This is what is so bad to me. I don't want to constantly on guard because it removes the enjoyment of reading a thing. Also, I am worried that we are going to get to time where telling the difference is actually much, much more difficult than it is now. We will be swimming through a sea of potentially stupid and dumb ideas dressed up as well-reasoned arguments. And it will only be through some serious thinking that we can determine whether it is indeed a genuinely interesting new idea or a stupid one.
I'm worried our response will be to shrink the size of unknown voices with whom we are willing to interact. That seems like a sad outcome.
I'm worried our response will be to shrink the size of unknown voices with whom we are willing to interact. That seems like a sad outcome.
I see that outcome too. (Not that sure it's sad, just the inevitable consequence... new offensive tech vs reacting/developing defensive efforts to it)
update: what this guy said:
If it is obvious to me your piece received your time and attention, then I will give it mine.
title is great, and that's the conclusion I'm largely coming to as well... AI broke so much of the (admittedly, already quite broken and dying internet)
interesting way of putting it, I can see the point. It's the avalanche/overflow/choice paralysis from the sheer amount of it -- not even limited by the physical/human effort of creating it. Constant, neverending stream, forcing us to ever more strictly police what we read and guard our attention.
if you hint to me that your content is a machine's -- asymmetry above -- I'm out; if you're giving me subpar quality, you're not worth my time.