this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
1121 points (96.9% liked)

Fuck AI

1513 readers
156 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Thats actually really good for people who have trouble reading anything above simple language and therefore can make books more accessible. A great way to use AI.

[–] match@pawb.social 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

i think ai for accessibility is good actually

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Is stripping the beauty out of literature an accessibility improvement?

Feels like you're handing someone a picture of a square and telling them they can't appreciate a real Picasso.

[–] III@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Given that a large portion of society, at least US society, can't comprehend simple concepts - I am willing to dumb the beauty out of some things to help them grow.

Your point is valid and correct - but there might be reasons such a thing might be helpful.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

a large portion of society, at least US society, can’t comprehend simple concepts

That's routinely overstated and deliberately misconstrued, often for the purpose of gutting social and economic institutions.

AI is leverage to this end, routinely. A very clumsy, inaccurate, and chinzy tool is inserted between people on the grounds that's they're too thick headed to communicate with one another.

The end result is more confusion, more frustration, and less coherence as people struggle to parse language that's been mangled into a 4th grade reading level.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Many people don't appreciate Picasso

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Many people don't appreciate Picasso

[–] perishthethought@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Oh Ann, you rainbow-infused space unicorn. If we allow this now, what's to stop them from completely rewriting every classic work of fiction to fit their worldview?

I say no re-writing should be allowed. Learn to read, people and learn to love doing it.

[–] greybeard@lemmy.one 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, get that West Side Story bullshit out of here. If you want to learn about Romeo and Juliet, you should read it in the original Shakespeare, preferably in his original hand writing.

[–] perishthethought@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thaaaaat's different, eh? Nobody should be opposed to someone writing new works from scratch, even if they are inspired by something else. People do that all the time and should keep doing that.

I'm just opposed to letting software (controlled by people who don't expose their intentions and pretend it's all automated with the best intentions) re-write either Romeo & Juliet or West Side Story, for any purpose, including to assist people.

[–] greybeard@lemmy.one 5 points 5 months ago

West Side Story was made so that a new generation could understand Romeo and Juliet. It did well what this AI is probably going to do poorly. I agree that this is a dumb idea for a service, and I really doubt any of the current AIs will do it the original works any justice when it comes to wordplay, clever phrasing, or other subtle details expert authors put into their works. That doesn't, however, mean that rewriting works to be more accessible isn't a very valid thing to do. Hell, that's what translation does.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

If you want to learn about Romeo and Juliet, you should read it in the original Shakespeare, preferably in his original hand writing.

This but unironically?

West Side Story was a real transformation of the work that added in places and subtracted in others.

If you want to learn about R+J, you absolutely should read the original. Better yet, you should see a performance by a professional Shakespeare company.

Don't watch the Spielberg knock off. Don't even settle for the Baz Luhrmann film. Watch the original if you can.

Purely on it's face, it is an incredible piece of artwork. You can enjoy it entirely in it's original form.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

Wait till someone tells you about translations and language evolution

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

now say that without sounding ableist.

[–] perishthethought@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think we can help people who need help without re-writing classic novels. Who are you thinking would be benefited by this? I wonder if I could suggest some other technology or approach which does help them without rewriting an author's works.

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

firstly, so you hate all Reader's Digest abridged books, then? This isn't a new concept.

As for who, from what everyone else has already written, so I don't have to come up with anything original to defend: non-native English speakers learning the language. People with reading disabilities. Honestly, just spend a little while reading through some of the comments which address your "but I lack imagination and any concept of people different to me" issue. plenty of good answers here.