• Iconoclast@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Who said it needs to add value? The article claims that showing AI-generated content to others without them explicitly asking for it is inherently bad - even when you tell them it’s AI. So basically: if you share it without mentioning the source you’re deceiving people, and if you do mention it it’s still bad… because reasons.

      To me that just sounds like an ideological stance more than a logical one.

      • maniclucky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Value in the abstract sense of “desirable thing” not necessarily monetary.

        If I’m having a conversation within and ask them about a thing, I’d much rather an “I don’t know” than whatever the plagiarism engine’s facsimile of an opinion is.

        Lot of people have strong opinions about ai, many of them very bad. Because what should be a novelty or maybe a part of a more sophisticated system instead of the half assed implementation that it currently is. At the low low price of stealing from artists and fucking the environment.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      You don’t have to use it. Other people who do find value in it use it.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          OP provided no context whatsoever.

          Over the years there have been so many conversations I’ve been in online where someone asked something where the answer was trivially found with Google or some other search engine, but the conversation was interesting so I would Google it and provide the answer as part of my response. Is that blockworthy too?