It’s unacceptable for a tool to sacrifice an iota of clarity, coherence, meaning, quality, etc. for the purpose of embedding hidden clues within the text to suggest its provenance. The idea that anything other than *my* needs should factor into the generation of text *for me* is patently offensive.
  • XLE@piefed.socialEnglish
    31·
    23 hours ago

    “Because we’re human, we tend to personify AI and imagine it as some kind of glowing robot with a benign and neutral face, when it’s really just predictive code based on a massive stolen database of actual writing, physically based in vast, expensive and destructive datacentres with catastrophic repercussions for the surrounding communities,” he said.

    Kennard also stressed that AI was not a “tool” similar to spellcheck or a thesaurus…

    A very valuable comment compared to the author of OP’s article who simply seems entitled to this cloud service?

    And now Anthropic is saying they’re going to make it worse, on purpose, for purposes that do not benefit me in any way? Even if only slightly worse?

    Get fucked.

    • joe@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      21 hours ago

      I’m sorry, was this reply meant for me? I don’t see how it fits as a response to my comment.

      • XLE@piefed.socialEnglish
        1·
        21 hours ago

        Yes. I was quoting some insight from the piece you linked, so it seemed appropriate to reply to your comment here.

        • joe@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          17 hours ago

          I don’t mean to be dense, but can you elaborate on what point you were trying to make in context to my comment? I still don’t see what it has to do with what I said.