> corporate executives love AI because it is extremely good at one thing - making you think it knows what it’s talking about, and masterfully avoiding any accountability.

Whether or not the LLM output is actually correct is often overshadowed by efforts to convince people that it is. This to me is the most concerning thing about AI (in its current state): the potential for mis/disinformation is huge and the companies controlling AI are more interested in it being widely used than in it being factually correct.

We live in a bizarre world where far too many people believe that harassment is permissible if someone is famous, in the public eye, or if they’ve done something wrong. Yes, his claims and credentials should have been investigated (and done so years ago) but, again, none of this justifies relentless harassment.

That others have been publicly shamed and harassed in the past does not justify this public shaming and harassment. That others did not take their life over it does not make this public shaming and harassment somehow okay.

It is very possible to believe that Arday misrepresented himself AND ALSO believe that the harassment against him was unwarranted. I personally would have much rather seen all that energy funneled into pressure on the institution — Cambridge and the other universities he worked at — to be transparent about their hiring practices and answer for clear inconsistencies in Arday’s work history.

I hope you and others realize that he was being relentlessly harassed. I highly doubt the academic job was the only thing causing him distress. His claims were questionable at best but not worthy of the vitriol he received.

Yes, but with a human worker there is a chain of accountability. With AI, there is none.

Ah, finally! To be liberated from the burden of speaking! Perhaps soon the AI will even think for us!

On a more serious note, this is additional evidence that Wall-E stands as the most accurate sci-fi projection of the future.

The illustrations are not great but the stories are surprisingly good. I hope more people see this.

This is what irritates me about most AI use that I see. Lots of talk about creativity! and innovation! But most of what I see is novelty (sometimes) the first time around followed by persistent levels of intellectual and creative laziness thereafter.

First, they took my em dash. Now, they’re taking my neutral background with orange accents.

One point of disagreement I have with this article:

> So, how much does intrinsic knowledge matter? What's the difference with a calculator, isn't it the same ? For everyday output, I'd say less and less, and pretending otherwise is just looking backward

The calculator example is always so telling to me because I think people say this without realizing that kids in early math are in fact not allowed to use calculators. The point is to help them learn principles and concepts first by doing the math themselves. Intrinsic knowledge matters because it allows humans to think, develop ideas, and propose solutions. It allows people to actually do the thing that makes us uniquely human — to intellectualize and theorize, to consider and ponder.

That said, I understand that the essay is really just about the business environment and is thus presuming that productive efficiency is what matters above all else. So yes in most business environments, intrinsic knowledge might not matter much. I think this is a grave error though that in the long term will have dire social consequences.

With the exception of your last point regarding AI slop copies of your app, these are all things we faced as hobbyist creators 20 years ago too. I get your frustration but it seems a bit unreasonable to expect a lapsed payment to not result in a service terminated. Guarding against bad faith actors has always been a problem on the internet as has the name infringement issue (though haphazardly applied). Perhaps the speed and scale at which these things occur have changed but they aren’t new.

So yes, keep building. This is what comes with the territory.

#2 is because streaming companies made a promise that they couldn’t live up to — namely, that subscribing to their service would essentially be tv on demand and we could watch the best tv had to offer without the limited scheduling of over-the-air broadcasting. Well, it turns out that one of the great benefits of network broadcasting was that everyone could watch the same show because everyone had access to the broadcast. The streaming companies are expecting subscribers to watch what’s on their service just because it’s on their service, which is exactly what regular broadcast tv had forced everyone to do. Streaming offers the option to watch anytime but not the option to watch anything, even thought that was in fact part of the original promise.

It doesn’t matter. The human responsible for the written piece is … responsible for the written piece. If someone is willing to use AI to supplement their own intellect and/or writing abilities, then they need to take ownership of the mistakes, misconceptions, etc., that come along with that, the same as an author who does all the work themselves. The problem you’ve identified here is that the human responsible for the writing is not fully taking responsibility for the writing.