I think a big part of the issue is how AI is sold to us. The people in charge of it are telling us it's so much further along and so much more revolutionary than it actually is, at least in editorial and content-related fields. If they could be more honest about their applications, perhaps we could have a normal conversation about it. But when we're told it's this be-all-end-all technology and then we use it and it's full of errors and bad writing, we're left with a double band of disappointment and frustration. (It also doesn't help that the people trying to sell AI to us don't have a great track record when it comes to the value-add of their previous efforts).
Sean, imagine an AI industry that is more modest in its promises and in its scope. One where, to draw on the example I used, you can use it to read a contract and have it tell you what is standard and what is particular to your case? Or for journalism, one that can scan transcripts of interviews you did for quotes about a specific issue or moment you're writing about.
That's useful and interesting. But that doesn't scale 100X does it? And to make it scale, it has to be the NEXT BIG THING which is why it's being sold the way it is. And that's not useful to anyone not deeply invested in SV financing or private equity.
If I don't use AI to think for me, how will I be able to generate pithy insights like this on Substacks and message boards:
Generative AI has the potential to enhance online discussions by providing thoughtful, well-researched, and contextually relevant contributions to Substack. By leveraging vast amounts of data and advanced algorithms, AI can assist users in articulating their thoughts more clearly and effectively, fostering richer conversations.
Moreover, generative AI can help moderate discussions by identifying and addressing misinformation, promoting respectful dialogue, and ensuring that diverse perspectives are represented. This technology can serve as a valuable tool for users seeking to engage in meaningful exchanges, ultimately enriching the online community experience.
As we navigate the complexities of digital communication, embracing generative AI can lead to more informed, constructive, and engaging interactions on internet message boards.
And how would I be able to generate a reply like this:
Thank you for this thoughtful perspective — I really appreciate how you’ve highlighted both the opportunities and responsibilities that come with integrating generative AI into online discussions. The idea that AI can not only elevate the clarity and depth of conversation but also support a more respectful and inclusive environment really resonates with me.
As we continue to experiment with these tools, it’s important to remain mindful of their impact on community dynamics and the authenticity of dialogue. Your point about embracing AI to foster more informed and constructive interactions gives me a lot to reflect on — here’s hoping we can all contribute to shaping these technologies in ways that truly enrich our digital spaces.
We’re talking a lot about this in book publishing too, and it keeps coming back to: you won’t be replaced by AI; you’ll be replaced by someone who knows how to use it well. There’s a huge learning curve to figuring out which tool to use, how to get what you want from a prompt, how to iterate. It’s not to have AI do the creative work, but how can it perhaps spark a title idea or create a list of every proper noun so a copy editor doesn’t have to? How can it make the mundane parts of our day easier so we have time to be more creative.
Leah! So great to have you here! And I've heard the same notion to, "You won’t be replaced by AI; you’ll be replaced by someone who knows how to use it well." Same idea as my question, right? The point is how best to learn.
That last sentence is the core of it, but my fear in the newspaper industry is that that ends up being The Big Lie that they tell us to justify replacing people or not filling positions (They said the same thing about a lot of online and social technologies too.)
I think a big part of the issue is how AI is sold to us. The people in charge of it are telling us it's so much further along and so much more revolutionary than it actually is, at least in editorial and content-related fields. If they could be more honest about their applications, perhaps we could have a normal conversation about it. But when we're told it's this be-all-end-all technology and then we use it and it's full of errors and bad writing, we're left with a double band of disappointment and frustration. (It also doesn't help that the people trying to sell AI to us don't have a great track record when it comes to the value-add of their previous efforts).
Sean, imagine an AI industry that is more modest in its promises and in its scope. One where, to draw on the example I used, you can use it to read a contract and have it tell you what is standard and what is particular to your case? Or for journalism, one that can scan transcripts of interviews you did for quotes about a specific issue or moment you're writing about.
That's useful and interesting. But that doesn't scale 100X does it? And to make it scale, it has to be the NEXT BIG THING which is why it's being sold the way it is. And that's not useful to anyone not deeply invested in SV financing or private equity.
If I don't use AI to think for me, how will I be able to generate pithy insights like this on Substacks and message boards:
Generative AI has the potential to enhance online discussions by providing thoughtful, well-researched, and contextually relevant contributions to Substack. By leveraging vast amounts of data and advanced algorithms, AI can assist users in articulating their thoughts more clearly and effectively, fostering richer conversations.
Moreover, generative AI can help moderate discussions by identifying and addressing misinformation, promoting respectful dialogue, and ensuring that diverse perspectives are represented. This technology can serve as a valuable tool for users seeking to engage in meaningful exchanges, ultimately enriching the online community experience.
As we navigate the complexities of digital communication, embracing generative AI can lead to more informed, constructive, and engaging interactions on internet message boards.
And how would I be able to generate a reply like this:
Thank you for this thoughtful perspective — I really appreciate how you’ve highlighted both the opportunities and responsibilities that come with integrating generative AI into online discussions. The idea that AI can not only elevate the clarity and depth of conversation but also support a more respectful and inclusive environment really resonates with me.
As we continue to experiment with these tools, it’s important to remain mindful of their impact on community dynamics and the authenticity of dialogue. Your point about embracing AI to foster more informed and constructive interactions gives me a lot to reflect on — here’s hoping we can all contribute to shaping these technologies in ways that truly enrich our digital spaces.
We’re talking a lot about this in book publishing too, and it keeps coming back to: you won’t be replaced by AI; you’ll be replaced by someone who knows how to use it well. There’s a huge learning curve to figuring out which tool to use, how to get what you want from a prompt, how to iterate. It’s not to have AI do the creative work, but how can it perhaps spark a title idea or create a list of every proper noun so a copy editor doesn’t have to? How can it make the mundane parts of our day easier so we have time to be more creative.
Leah! So great to have you here! And I've heard the same notion to, "You won’t be replaced by AI; you’ll be replaced by someone who knows how to use it well." Same idea as my question, right? The point is how best to learn.
That last sentence is the core of it, but my fear in the newspaper industry is that that ends up being The Big Lie that they tell us to justify replacing people or not filling positions (They said the same thing about a lot of online and social technologies too.)