Really struggling to follow what author is aiming to convey here.
The sentences seem coherent and the language register is sophisticated...but it just doesn't add up.
Guessing it's something about this flow club thing whatever that may be - some sort of context that the author has in his/her head that the reader does not.
I didn't do a good enough job articulating the feeling of seeing AI make all kinds of things for me but yet feeling slightly dreadful instead of more alive. I tried. Thanks for the comment
I think this a great point though. It's always worth asking what the purpose of innovation is.
The end goal should always be to help people and societies thrive and feel vitality.
If the goal becomes speed for its own sake, it is going in the wrong direction.
I usually skim/scan before reading anything. I used to do this to get a gist of what to expect, but now I do it to look for telltale signs of AI slop (and run through Pangram if I’m suspicious) before committing to reading
Claude tried to massively increase the scope of this essay after reviewing my first draft. In the editing process it also added a bunch of emdashes to my writing. It's very hard to resist.
I don't understand these blog posts. Unless you're an absolute beginner, what is so hard about doing any of these tasks yourself or reviewing AI output?
AI won't think for you. It just (sort of) does work you delegate to it. It's from this perspective that you might get productivity gains, but the human in the loop is still the bottleneck. This doesn't mean you remove the human. It means the human decides how much they need AI.
There is no AI workflow that removes the human and magically does exactly what was intended. That's wishful thinking.
Really struggling to follow what author is aiming to convey here.
The sentences seem coherent and the language register is sophisticated...but it just doesn't add up.
Guessing it's something about this flow club thing whatever that may be - some sort of context that the author has in his/her head that the reader does not.
I didn't do a good enough job articulating the feeling of seeing AI make all kinds of things for me but yet feeling slightly dreadful instead of more alive. I tried. Thanks for the comment
I think this a great point though. It's always worth asking what the purpose of innovation is. The end goal should always be to help people and societies thrive and feel vitality. If the goal becomes speed for its own sake, it is going in the wrong direction.
I miss reading human experiences, written by humans.
Thank you?
I usually skim/scan before reading anything. I used to do this to get a gist of what to expect, but now I do it to look for telltale signs of AI slop (and run through Pangram if I’m suspicious) before committing to reading
Claude tried to massively increase the scope of this essay after reviewing my first draft. In the editing process it also added a bunch of emdashes to my writing. It's very hard to resist.
You should try writing about what we lose when we use AI to write blog posts.
Already outsourcing your work to ai? Good for you, hopefully you can enjoy that 10-15 minutes of irony.
I don't understand these blog posts. Unless you're an absolute beginner, what is so hard about doing any of these tasks yourself or reviewing AI output?
AI won't think for you. It just (sort of) does work you delegate to it. It's from this perspective that you might get productivity gains, but the human in the loop is still the bottleneck. This doesn't mean you remove the human. It means the human decides how much they need AI.
There is no AI workflow that removes the human and magically does exactly what was intended. That's wishful thinking.