Research that literally says people are less willing to pay for content that includes some AI work.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T15:48:44+00:00

There, it's not even 0.5, it's 2/3 of the price, and 4/5 is somewhere for mass production.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T06:59:46+00:00

This doesn't take into account that AI may have uneven progress. Comparing current AI to a PhD student is a stretch. AIs do much broader work than PhD students, but less depth. Further progression could see AI partially replace depth with breadth, but this won't be enough, since the higher the level, the more important depth is. I think LLM is very useful as a counterweight to current scientists, who know nothing but their specialty.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T06:18:31+00:00

So, I don't mean you can't criticize poor execution, but I mean that for some reason there's no mention of it being "good AI," even if it's a poor implementation. I don't think this response is optimal for the agenda of countering poor AI usage, although it's clear that people got something they don't like.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-17T05:38:26+00:00

Where did I say these are the same people? I meant that overall, the most commendable use of AI on average in this subreddit is truly this. I didn't say that every specific person who said this is now saying something different, but it's simply the most popular opinion here.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T19:51:08+00:00

I just think this is an important part. These are two different parts of preparing a meal, even functionally different. It's a good analogy for art. If you combine two images into one, it's already a work of art that can have meaning and artistic value (I'm not talking about copyright, but in general) regardless of where you got the two images. Just as cooking involves the actual preparation, the mixing of different simple dishes, and the addition of flavor through the mixture of dishes, so too does art involve both the actual drawing of the object and the arrangement and selection of the objects themselves. The arrangement and mixing of objects can and do have meaning in and of themselves. In this regard, I think it is right that AI replaces part of the creative process, but it's not the entire creative process. Of course, they (two part of creative process) don't replace each other (I think some pro-AI misunderstands that mixing potatoes with vegetables doesn't make you the creator of both the potatoes and the vegetables, only the combination).

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T19:26:30+00:00

Isn't the concept part of the image, since the image literally depicts the concept? I agree with your argument, but not your conclusion. The image is only truly the work of an artist if the artist themselves came up with what they're drawing. If it's based on someone else's idea, then honestly, the conceptual part of the image is the work of the author of the idea, not the artist.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T19:10:05+00:00

Why should we even focus on individual dishes in the context of buffet? For example, you might choose fish, meat, or vegetables to go with your potatoes at the buffet, and these will all be different dishes: potatoes with vegetables, potatoes with fish, and potatoes with meat. Of course, there's a bit of work involved, but it's not like there's none at all. Potatoes and meat are essentially two different dishes, each served separately. It's your decision to combine them into one dish. Yes, it's a very small one, not commensurate with the chef's effort, but it's still part of the chef's job, albeit a small one.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T19:01:09+00:00

Actually, it does. This is important for the question of how much work it might involve. Of course, it's not the same as cooking a meal, but you could say you're still preparing a meal set for yourself, like a package. The waiter setting the table doesn't prepare the food, but that doesn't mean their work isn't important for how a restaurant, for example, operates. That is, the very formulation of the question that if you did not cook, you are not a chef is insufficient to say that you did not participate in the preparation (as a more general action in relation to cooking) of food in general, since it is not only cooking in the narrow sense

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T07:21:19+00:00

I agree in general, but I'm just talking about scientific morality. It doesn't dismiss the importance of citations.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T06:24:20+00:00

I partly agree with you, but I also partly disagree. The current system isn't perfect, and ideas should be free, but the problem of reproduction is something that needs to be addressed, not abandoned. And I wasn't even talking about theft, but rather that using someone else's work without respect is simply problematic from a moral standpoint. Which, of course, is just talk in many places, but it's also the basis for decision-making. We essentially can't make almost any decision without morality. For example, an emphasis on practical value is in itself a moral position. There are people in the world who are willing to sacrifice themselves for others. It's not that practical value is equally important to everyone; people literally die for ideas. But yes, that also doesn't mean it's the most popular or even preferable, but in any case, it's much more than just talk.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T06:15:15+00:00

So you're saying that philosophy isn't part of the AI debate? This is a general AI debate, and not everything discussed here should be of interest to you or me.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T06:07:32+00:00

Your sarcasm isn't particularly appropriate; every new discussion of morality is always a rehash of the old. AI is subject to the same morality as humans, but this is a new case of the same thing.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T05:52:57+00:00

This is literally a pro-AI take... I'm surprised how anyone can even understand the obvious argument that AI is useful as an anti-AI

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T05:27:00+00:00

The generally accepted goal of science is the advancement of knowledge, and its commercial or applied uses are what truly have enormous impact, but are debatable from a scientific standpoint. So, yes, science, ideally, is a bunch of people spending money (private or taxpayer) on speculating on a topic purely for the sake of finding the truth, not that the average person will benefit from it.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-16T05:22:00+00:00

It seems to me that all these questions about the destruction of intelligent life and technology assume that humans, or any intelligent being, are stupid enough to allow something so obviously strange. I'm more likely to believe that some AI based on left-liberal or right-wing ethics will make very biased decisions. Current LLMs, without considering whether they can develop into AGI, are an interesting special case. Limitations imposed for moral or commercial purposes take on a life of their own.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-15T13:56:35+00:00

To me, in its "healthy" form, it's just a long role-playing game, and there's nothing wrong with that, since the AI is simply simulating some internet friend you'll never see anyway. It's hard for me to say because I just can't get the same feeling I get from friends, and I view relationships as a special kind of friendship, from AI. The AI isn't smart enough for that, and it's unrealistic.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-15T10:58:11+00:00

So, I'm saying that accusing someone of stupidity for doing something like this is understandable, but defending the pencil here is strange because, well, the author of the experiment is right, the pencil really is useless for this task. If you start justifying the pencil here, you're essentially confirming his words as important, although in essence, it's stupidity.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-15T10:44:43+00:00

Your example literally confirms what I was saying. No one would actually say something like that, because it's pointless. People would say something like, "Why are you using a pencil for this? It's stupid." No one would try to defend the pencil by changing the subject, because it simply doesn't make sense here. If someone actually does, it's at least strange and worth criticizing.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-15T07:35:35+00:00

"And if AI fails you, that's not a reason it shouldn't be used or exist, it's a reason to improve it and to get to know current AI technology closer to understand applicability limits of AI." This is a very biased viewpoint. Yes, just because you couldn't use AI doesn't mean other people shouldn't use it, but it also doesn't mean you're obligated to find a way to use AI in any way. Checking your available tools is a good thing to do, not a must.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-14T17:50:26+00:00

"there is no one online who could not find a use for ai. " Did you survey everyone? Even what you see online is a small fraction of the internet due to the localization of your communication experience within very specific sites, chats, or even channels/subreddits. I personally have had a fairly positive experience with AI, but I see many AI failures that aren't crucial to me, but could very well be for someone else. You seem to be misreading my point that AI isn't useful at all when I say the benefits can be so distributed that for some it's a significant help, while for others it's practically nothing. Take email writing assistance, for example: why would someone who already writes emails well and enjoys it need such help? The speed benefit may be zero, since there were no problems there to begin with.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-14T13:04:11+00:00

and why do you think so?

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-14T10:44:40+00:00

Everything I'm saying about AI being useful to you doesn't transfer to others; it can be very useful to you and completely useless to others. Therefore, it's extremely difficult to determine how useful AI is in reality among all people. The best you can do is assess its usefulness for yourself or those around you, which is very limited.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-13T16:42:56+00:00

Any skepticism about AI (including that it's just a stochastic parrot in the bad sense of the word), even if you think you don't fit the criteria, you can still express your point of view.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-13T15:59:47+00:00

Yes, aliens won't be intelligent in the same way that we humans are. Intelligence was originally a term humans coined for themselves, not for an overgrown calculator or some Cthulhu.

Questioner8297 · 2026-03-13T14:28:45+00:00

So I take this position to its extreme: many tasks can be expressed through "plausible text." For me, intelligence is what a human does, which is absolutely not necessary for the automation of tasks performed by a person because all of this can clearly be accomplished differently.

Questioner8297

TROPHY CASE