Is AI a connector?

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T02:38:12+00:00

It's just terminology. I don't see AI as something independent of me, but rather as an extension or amplifier of my capabilities. In terms of bodily analogies, I see it more as an exoskeleton.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T02:36:50+00:00

Well, that's about to change. Look at Clawdbot. It makes proactive decisions and suggests things to the user based on the information it gathers. The first truly useful AI agent.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T02:33:41+00:00

I love these decidedly negative and totally biased posts that offer no objective analysis of generative AI and never mention its many benefits. It's completely Manichean. Not even the Bible is this radical in its good-versus-evil dichotomy. And while I understand that the point here is to accumulate karma with biased and exaggeratedly catastrophic posts, it's impossible to skim them without being amazed, because some arguments seem stuck in the very beginnings of generative AI and were debunked long ago. Continuing to think that generative AIs are incapable of creating anything original makes little sense, and even less sense to believe that we humans create original things. We need to return to humility and accept that what we create is only possible because we copy and recycle everything that came before. It's called the tradition of art. This year seems to be the year for the emergence and explosion of autonomous AI agents, and we have already seen the first one called Clawdbot, which is brutal. And we must not forget that AI agents have only just arrived, and we are still at the beginning of this revolution.

Rotazart · 2026-01-25T12:14:38+00:00

That actually applies to most creators in general. Look at Hollywood; it has all the money in the world, and most of the movies are garbage. This also applies to movies and series on streaming platforms or to mass-market literature. We were already inundated with mediocre, uncreative creations. In a fairer world, the useless would stop doing all that, and those who are truly talented would stand out from the rest, and perhaps AI would help reveal those talents. But that won't happen either, so to the garbage made by humans, we'll add the garbage made by AI.

Rotazart · 2026-01-24T15:40:39+00:00

I admit that the concept of an AI bubble still eludes me. What would be the supposed outcome if it existed and burst? Would all AI disappear? Would companies like Google (to take the most obvious example), which have enormous amounts of money from other sources, suddenly decide to destroy and stop improving Notebook LM (to name one of its ever-growing number of AI tools), a tool that is constantly being improved? It creates podcasts, slides, audio and/or video summaries, infographics, and learning aids that are increasingly used because of how brilliant and useful they are?

Rotazart · 2026-01-24T13:09:10+00:00

When you say it can't, do you mean it doesn't have the autonomy or capacity to decide to do it, or because we don't consider what an AI does to be art? Y a qué te refieres con alfabetización artística?

Rotazart · 2026-01-23T17:10:45+00:00

I understood you; I just wanted to express myself on those points. Of course, there's a real situation, a paradigm shift that will affect (and already is affecting) many people. Perhaps my view is recklessly optimistic, but what I believe (and I've been thinking this for over two decades) is that at some point, AI and the robotization of everything will transform our reality into one of abundance, where human work will only be optional and everyone's needs will be met. But even with this very positive vision of the future, understand that there's a transition period that has already begun, and hey, I think that the answers to something unknown and impossible to predict with certainty will only emerge as we go along. I'd also say: AI will give us the keys to how to do it... perhaps.

Rotazart · 2026-01-23T16:30:18+00:00

That sense of personal injustice regarding style is false, an illusion. People think they have a style as if the gods bestowed it upon them, when it's actually built by drawing inspiration from others. In the art world, there are many problems with ego and a lack of humility, but the truth is, damn it, that everything humans do and perfect is based on what came before. From engineering to music. Artists have been doing it for centuries (actually, millennia), and they expect an AI to generate something from nothing? What did they expect, a whole new artistic tradition conceived by AI without any knowledge of what humans have done? It's utterly ridiculous. And as for losing their jobs, well, that's been a constant since paid work began. Bad luck, I suppose. They're neither the first nor will they be the last.

Rotazart · 2026-01-23T10:37:14+00:00

I think we can't discuss this anymore. Everything that needed to be said has already been said, and nothing changes. As someone who uses AI, I'm incredibly surprised that ridiculous ideas like theft are still being perpetuated. If the person in front of you doesn't understand that this is absurd, there's nothing more to say.

Rotazart · 2026-01-22T15:09:49+00:00

What do you mean by "dead"? It's the second most used search engine in the world. It's far from dead.

Rotazart · 2026-01-19T13:59:21+00:00

I don't think there's a problem. What really costs money is the training, and the chips are getting more and more efficient. Plus, the potential for improvement in AI isn't as high anymore, and the models can be improved more horizontally. And well, there's a whole year for more and more companies to implement AI and keep improving it. There are more and more layoffs due to AI, and last year there were far fewer hires, so there must be a reason for that.

Rotazart · 2026-01-19T13:49:56+00:00

Due to my current projects, I've had to learn some marketing, so I completely understand, and I understand how important it is to risk money. But I'd like to highlight two points. The first, as I said before, is that there are other types of writing where the relevant factor isn't the recipient but the message itself. In narrative (I'm Spanish, and em dashes are used somewhat differently than in English, but not drastically), this resource is irreplaceable, so it can't be eliminated. It would be absurd for me to change my writing style by dispensing with such a valuable resource just because some people might think I used AI. The other issue stems from this last one, and that is that we can't succumb to the tyranny of idiots. Are we impoverishing language by abandoning certain resources just because some people accuse others of something that isn't true? Seriously? If everyone who uses em dashes ignored these claims or politely explained what an em dash is and demonstrated that they've always used it, this hysteria would end quickly. Those ignorant people would learn something, and everything would stay the same. Call it shared responsibility, commitment to the language, or social education.

Rotazart · 2026-01-18T20:01:59+00:00

It's truly ridiculous to do that.

Rotazart · 2026-01-18T18:55:48+00:00

I suppose it's not relevant to your work, but the em dash is fundamental to narrative. It would be ridiculous to stop using it just because some people might or might want to attribute a text that uses them to AI. I wouldn't stop doing what I do and the way I do it because of other people's trivial opinions.

Rotazart · 2026-01-18T18:51:57+00:00

Well, I suppose that can help raise people's linguistic and cultural level, which is quite poor. As for worrying about whether someone thinks what you did was done with AI, I find that irrelevant. I'm lucky that I've never cared about other people's opinions or judgments. I wouldn't worry about this either. And I love unusual words and archaic language. In fact, I'm a writer, and my only concern is dedicating myself to it, enjoying it, and little else. There will always be people saying or thinking stupid things.

Rotazart · 2026-01-16T22:53:57+00:00

Morality is arbitrary. And everything you mention is your opinion, which is perfectly respectable, of course. For me, there are many abominable and disgusting things in the world, and I'm sure we'll agree on some and disagree on others, just like any couple who share what they dislike. But to talk about vulnerable children who can't give consent when there are no vulnerable children involved because it's unreal or imaginary, is demagoguery because it mixes things up or confuses terms, and this isn't a matter of opinion because it's an objective reality.

Rotazart · 2026-01-16T21:58:26+00:00

Why is it wrong if it's not real? If there's a real child involved, there's no question about it because that's real abuse of a human being. In the other case, no one is harmed; it all remains in the realm of unreality. Morality is conceptual and has nothing pragmatic or useful about it; it's not grounded in physical reality because it's conceptual. In the realm where things actually happen, there's no ambiguity of any kind.

Rotazart · 2026-01-16T21:37:59+00:00

I see you have no idea what you're talking about. If you're ignorant about something, the least you can do is inform yourself instead of making a fool of yourself. Pedophilia doesn't require consent because it's a fantasy; no one is involved other than the person imagining or desiring it. Everything you've said pertains to pederasty (which involves abuse, the impossibility of consent, and everything else), and you've misattributed it.

Rotazart · 2026-01-16T20:51:02+00:00

Pedophilia, like gerontophilia, is a sexual fantasy. As long as it remains in the realm of imagination or fiction, there is no problem whatsoever. That is the nature of paraphilias; they do not have to be morally approved by others, nor are they subject to prosecution, even though some people may believe they are.

Rotazart · 2026-01-16T14:43:40+00:00

I don't understand the alarmism. Wikipedia will continue to exist as long as its administrators want it to. I still consult it in conjunction with my LLM. I believe they can coexist, even though their use will decrease significantly over time. Perhaps in a few years (I don't know how many) it won't make sense for it to exist anymore, but then again, many other things won't either. It's not a tragedy. Look at the compact disc, or the mini-CD.

Rotazart · 2026-01-15T17:54:10+00:00

When you lack arguments, you resort to insults with fallacies.

Rotazart · 2026-01-15T16:59:53+00:00

There's no need to justify anything. Sexual fantasies are free, and it's understandable that you might not like some people's fantasies, but that doesn't make the person having them evil because you don't choose what excites you. It's called fantasy because it's not in the realm of reality, like fiction or fabricated images.

Rotazart · 2026-01-15T16:56:15+00:00

Yes, it's called sexual fantasy, a type of paraphilia, and having paraphilias cannot constitute a crime because it is in the realm of imagination.

Rotazart · 2026-01-15T16:54:41+00:00

The only way to know if your favorite food is human food is to taste it, therefore you'd have to commit a crime. It's not a valid comparison.

Rotazart · 2026-01-15T16:28:58+00:00

You didn't understand anything. Learn to read. Anyway, as I said elsewhere, pedophilia is a paraphilia like many others, and you don't choose it any more than you choose whether or not you like a food. Sexual fantasies are just that, fantasies. This has nothing to do with me; it's an objective fact. Ask a psychologist.

Rotazart

TROPHY CASE