The thing is, the LLM doesn’t actually know anything, and lies about it.
Just like your average human journalist. If you ever read an article from not specialist journal on a topic you are familiar with - you know. This seems actually where LLM are very similar to how human brain works - if we don't know something, we come up with some bullshit.
Even medium human writers can comprehend their work as a whole, though. There is a cohesiveness even to the bullshit. The LLM is just putting words down that match the prompt. It's rng driven, readable Lorum Ipsum.
If the results were still edited afterwards, there may be some merit to the output, but any company going full LLM isn't looking for quality. They want to use it to churn out endless content that they simply can't get from even a team of humans. More than could be edited even if they kept editors on staff.
Even medium human writers can comprehend their work as a whole, though
Sure, but a lot of humans are rather bad writers.
but any company going full LLM isn’t looking for quality.
That is true for 24h news cycle of online media, regardless LLM.
Sure, but a lot of humans are rather bad writers.
Bad writing is still a step above rng junk, imo.
but any company going full LLM isn’t looking for quality.
That is true for 24h news cycle of online media, regardless LLM.
Yes, that was my point. Setting up your company to put out more content than can possibly be processed by humans is a glaring sign of their values - ie quantity far above quality.
Bad writing is still a step above rng junk, imo.
I'v read writing worse than GTP. I had to help someone write an essay - and I just wrote it for him in the end, because he absolutely lacked the skills to write a long meaningful text. At at the same time - genius of a percussionist.
Do you think that person was signing up for jobs writing for blogs or content farms?
Have you read some low quality journalism? The whole yellow press can be replaced with GTP and no one would ever see a difference.
Ok, so do you wanna talk about your terrible writing partner in school? Or "yellow press"? Or maybe the topic of the article, which isn't journalism in the slightest? Or how about my point, which was, again, that even bad writers have context, as opposed to an LLM which is just filling in the arbitrary patterns it's programmed to delineate. Readability is not what I'm talking about.
Dude, what's with aggression? We just having a conversation that floats along. I'm talking about general LLMs capabilities to write text - which are in my opinion comparable to human writing, since again - a lot of people lack the same things LLMs generated texts are lacking. And I had some examples. No idea what made you so upset.
You brought up several different, unrelated topics and pretty much ignored anything I said to disprove something I never claimed. That is frustrating to deal with.
Except you are the one who responded to me. And if there is a point you made I overlooked - I will gladly answer it. I also didn't disprove anything - just voiced my opinion. I'm not interested in a debate club and winning arguments, just sharing opinions and trying to understand others.
The top comment is about how LLMs don't comprehend what they're writing, and your first comment (as I read it) was about how LLMs work how human brains do. My point was that they don't and why, not about how good or bad humans or machines are at writing, which is what you kept bringing up, hence the frustration.
My first comment is, that there are enough humans out there that don't really comprehend what they are writing and often also make shit up as they go. I was not talking about the underlying mechanism, which is rather speculative since we have little idea how complex functions of the brain - like text generation, work. Just making a humorous light hearted comparison.
Our conversation is a nice illustration how, maybe we as humans aren't as good at understanding text - as we might think. (Again - that is a light hearted comment and not some profound complex observation).
But yeah, the quality of what is passing as journalism now is often ridiculous. But the only way to combat this is by having editors that are knowledgable about topics. But it seemed editors were the first people laid off, when internet articles became a thing.
So modern journalists were redundant all along?
24 hours news cycle of online media creates junk journalism on new level. Good journalism needs time and can't spit out news articles every minute of the day. Editors won't help, because it's just not possible to do good journalism on that scale. But jeh - in general with AI, the jobs will shift more to editing. Which will be extremely soul-draining, going though tons of AI generated bullshit
Just like your average human journalist. If you ever read an article from not specialist journal on a topic you are familiar with - you know. This seems actually where LLM are very similar to how human brain works - if we don't know something, we come up with some bullshit.
Even medium human writers can comprehend their work as a whole, though. There is a cohesiveness even to the bullshit. The LLM is just putting words down that match the prompt. It's rng driven, readable Lorum Ipsum.
If the results were still edited afterwards, there may be some merit to the output, but any company going full LLM isn't looking for quality. They want to use it to churn out endless content that they simply can't get from even a team of humans. More than could be edited even if they kept editors on staff.
Sure, but a lot of humans are rather bad writers.
That is true for 24h news cycle of online media, regardless LLM.
Bad writing is still a step above rng junk, imo.
Yes, that was my point. Setting up your company to put out more content than can possibly be processed by humans is a glaring sign of their values - ie quantity far above quality.
I'v read writing worse than GTP. I had to help someone write an essay - and I just wrote it for him in the end, because he absolutely lacked the skills to write a long meaningful text. At at the same time - genius of a percussionist.
Do you think that person was signing up for jobs writing for blogs or content farms?
Have you read some low quality journalism? The whole yellow press can be replaced with GTP and no one would ever see a difference.
Ok, so do you wanna talk about your terrible writing partner in school? Or "yellow press"? Or maybe the topic of the article, which isn't journalism in the slightest? Or how about my point, which was, again, that even bad writers have context, as opposed to an LLM which is just filling in the arbitrary patterns it's programmed to delineate. Readability is not what I'm talking about.
That's how you get the room
That's how you get the room
Dude, what's with aggression? We just having a conversation that floats along. I'm talking about general LLMs capabilities to write text - which are in my opinion comparable to human writing, since again - a lot of people lack the same things LLMs generated texts are lacking. And I had some examples. No idea what made you so upset.
You brought up several different, unrelated topics and pretty much ignored anything I said to disprove something I never claimed. That is frustrating to deal with.
Except you are the one who responded to me. And if there is a point you made I overlooked - I will gladly answer it. I also didn't disprove anything - just voiced my opinion. I'm not interested in a debate club and winning arguments, just sharing opinions and trying to understand others.
The top comment is about how LLMs don't comprehend what they're writing, and your first comment (as I read it) was about how LLMs work how human brains do. My point was that they don't and why, not about how good or bad humans or machines are at writing, which is what you kept bringing up, hence the frustration.
My first comment is, that there are enough humans out there that don't really comprehend what they are writing and often also make shit up as they go. I was not talking about the underlying mechanism, which is rather speculative since we have little idea how complex functions of the brain - like text generation, work. Just making a humorous light hearted comparison.
Our conversation is a nice illustration how, maybe we as humans aren't as good at understanding text - as we might think. (Again - that is a light hearted comment and not some profound complex observation).
So modern journalists were redundant all along?
But yeah, the quality of what is passing as journalism now is often ridiculous. But the only way to combat this is by having editors that are knowledgable about topics. But it seemed editors were the first people laid off, when internet articles became a thing.
24 hours news cycle of online media creates junk journalism on new level. Good journalism needs time and can't spit out news articles every minute of the day. Editors won't help, because it's just not possible to do good journalism on that scale. But jeh - in general with AI, the jobs will shift more to editing. Which will be extremely soul-draining, going though tons of AI generated bullshit