Post

I will not allow your propaganda to affect my opinion. Fuck off NYT, you transphobic POS.

It occasionally comes in handy in the form of gift articles, and some of the material in the accompanying Athletic subscription is of interest to me.

Behind a paywall because of course

And people wonder why we don’t like New York Times employees.

It's all stolen. All of it. All of what's written there is from humans. Nothing else that we know of writes things. Writing is a human thing, at least at present. You can rearrange all you want, but without human writers, tech companies would have no one to steal from. Fuck every last bit of this.

Which one is AI? Fuck you or.… Fuck you

i shan't

Since the "AI" explicitly rips them off, Imma go with the writers.

Piss off.

Have you ever tried urinating into your own mouth? You might like it!

Oh fuck off

Is that Ursula Le Guin? You're using Ursula Le Guin as your example of "maybe human experience doesn't matter that much in writing"? Farther west than west, Beyond the land, That's how far you can **** off with this.

Thing is, it's not really about which reads better, it's about the point of the text existing in the first place. We read each other's thoughts and ideas because we're interested in what happening in each other's heads. We care about the connection to another human's inner world.

What did we tell you about AI? Go with frutiger aero instead.

Nothing will read as well as a style you're intimately familiar with.

Maybe that was familiarity, but it read better to me because it reopened the human connection I made with her work, and I FELT things again. I recognised Sagan's style, and the AI did a good enough job to almost fool me, but it genuinely fell short a bit. It felt poetic, like him, but generic.

I genuinely hope the New York Times' writers DON'T get replaced with AI, because I sure as fuck don't want these idiots writing for publications I still have some respect for.

AI can't write, it regurgitates words it chopped because tech billionaires are allowed to have whatever they want. If it looks human, it's because it stole from one. Be less fucking complicit.

Like, hey, nice gimmick. Statistically speaking, the bot that produced it was trained on the output of the Nazi CSAM generator. www.theverge.com/report/87091... www.theguardian.com/technology/2...

"I would prefer not to."

Fuck off

Eat my ass

How do writers stack up against the thing that steals their work and pukes it back out?

Wish I had one so I could unsub to protest of this Ursula K Le Guin slander.

AI;DR

"What's better, human writers or a cheap imitation of human writers that cannot think?"

The NYTIMES helped elect the current president with both-siderism and clickbait headlines.

Never Underestimate the Power of a Schnook!

Shut the fuck up!!!!!

I smell a false premise here.

So glad I don’t pay for this garbage anymore.

LLMs don’t write.

A.I. is very good at mimicking bad but popular writing, especially for short quotes.

Interesting timing to publish this AI PR nonsense after a poll showing AI polling in the low 20s of favorability.

They’re probably better than NYT writers, but that’s a low bar.

You people need to kill yourselves

and how does this flimsy data point stack up against the wealth of evidence that our literacy rates are declining all over the country?

I would be curious to know if either of the reporters has ever taken a college-level literature class or read a single work of criticism or theory of any kind

The idea here seems to be that everything—novels, applications, letter, everything—should be written in the single correct style: that of an interoffice memo. Lowest common denominator writing.

He's the reference ffs

Ai is THE dumbest invention in human history

Ai didnt “write” anything. It steals a bunch from actual authors and then barfs it back up in bizarre and awful ways.

“A.l. chatbots contain the sum of all human knowledge.” No they don’t you pathetic bootlicking fuckwits.

where are they learning that skill from again?

Let’s not and say fuck AI instead

I need to subscribe to the New York Times just so I can cancel it again.

damn your readers are dumb as fuck my guy

If u get an A.I. that believes in god...lol...is a shit.

Shut the fuck up

How does the New York Times stack up against actual journalism?

Who do I email to pitch my article idea: "Which of these turds is from me, and which one is AI generated?" I think it would do numbers

when the times posts stuff like this, it is intended to upset or irritate. it’s intentionally abusive to their readers. they should be ashamed to publish this, honestly

Choose the passage you like best, regardless of how it may have been written? Bad writing is kind of the problem...

two words: semantic ablation AI rounds off the sharp edges of human language, moving everything to the median, and making it deadly boring and cliché in short, fuck off

How far down Plato's cave shall we go?

Reporting live from inside the leopard's mouth.

Decades ago, there was a proto-chatbot called Ractor. The creator published a book of things Ractor "wrote" called The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed. Then it turned out the selections were very carefully curated. And sometimes just faked.

Personally and as a human writer, I don't want anyone - but especially not a *news organization* - dumping my prose into AI without consent just so that it can shit out an approximation for the throwaway amusement of some vapid quiz consumer. This is not a fun or justifiable use of AI. Get a hobby.

How does dog diarrhea stack up against ice cream? Take our quiz.

They are only easily identifiable by someone who does a lot of reading. Based on my experience, I would expect the average college student to struggle to identify the AI. And I have read plenty of human-written published paragraphs much worse than some of those AI ones, too.

Funnily enough, both better than an LLM! (which is no diss on LLMs; they're not calculators so them doing addition is a case of "it's impressive they can do it at all" rather than dismissing where they fail. However note this is *also* true of humans, yet they ARE better at addition than LLMs are)

Wait, this is just a series of plagiarized AI writings right next to the real authors it plagiarized. Freed from context, it's nothing more than a yassified filter.

👎

These both sound like shit.

Are the results from this survey being supplied to Anthropic?

Both are human. The problem is that most people don't know what Large Language Models are and how they work. So, you are duping people with this nonsense.

How about you eat my shoes instead

i hope the scab who coughed up this dogshit loses their job to AI

Hey fuck you. -a human

How about no?

That one was the only one I had a particularly hard time with.

Yeah

"Better known for other work", per Lara Pudwell

What in the pro AI propaganda is this shit, Jesus Christ

So the goal is to smooth everything out so it’s soup or slop? Hell no and no to that hell.

I took the bullet, sorry everyone for contributing to the stats (but also who cares about the stats it's clickbait) It's not even juicy or anything but for info:

I'm seriously trying to figure out what punctuation this writer thinks it's missing. My best guess is that they misunderstood it.

Unsurprisingly, a rag that keeps firing human writers needs to convince its audience that perfectly smooth texture-less slop is preferable.

this is so fucking infuriating

That block of text was written by a chatbot. No wonder it's so offended you chose human creativity instead.

"Take, for example, this stone-cold banger that doesn't contain a mistake: "

what the fuck

Everybody knows AI falls apart when ideas have to be linked, whether it’s words or video, so brief presentations can mask major flaws. You know what you’re doing and should feel bad.

“Human art often includes errors of physics. Here, Salvador Dalí has accidentally painted these pocket watches in a semi-fluid state, when in fact pocket watches are necessarily made out of solid materials. Current GenAI image models have evolved beyond such trifling mistakes.”

Lol somebody really wrote that Cormac McCarthy's writing is clunky and full of mistakes, and they put their name on it? For the whole world to see?

1 is McCarthy (it makes no difference) 2 is Le Guin (You must not change) 3 is Sagan (Science is not only) (YES, the "AI" one here is literally just basically remixed stolen Sagan) 4 is Mantel (It is wise to conceal) 5 is Bishop (I caught a tremendous)

They're not "mistakes". They are the strokes of a writer with voice. They were wrung from his fingers through incalculable labors. What utter bullshit.

He has an empty space where his heart and mind should be

“Clunky”?? Eh?

This writer wants to be replaced by LLMs specifically. This is much more "Kevin Roose is among the dumbest, most pathetic humans alive" than NYT (though it's also NYT): defector.com/toward-a-the...

God this is soooooo embarrassing

Hack rag.

Sad little billionaire ass kissers. The title alone causes second hand embarrassment. RIP whatever speck of dignity you had left.

Oh yall are trying to fire EVERYBODY up there

Fuck off with this dogshit

Lmao how you guys this fucking clueless

This is gross. I feel sorry for your writers.