I hear your point, but I disagree on the contract.
The quality of the message should be inherent. I’m nudging readers to consider whether they value the essay less if they think it’s AI.
Clearly it goes from having potential to being trash. But the content didn’t change. That should give pause, no?
I put my name on this work and vouch that it’s worth your time. Yes. Why does it matter how it was made?
Well it’s my first post.
Do you mean go argument by argument / example by example, and really stress test each one and only keep the best?
Hope to improve, so thanks for the feedback!
Your stance is what the post is about.
I think AI would have made it much more top-down and to-the-point.
The one line takeaway is: People are using the proxy “looks like AI” to mean “not useful” and I think that’s wasteful.
I completely agree that whoever sent the message is crucial metadata. And therefore, it’s kind of refreshing and powerful to see people who use their real name on the web.[1]
That’s a powerful point. I guess I’m just partial to the idea of the inherent value of an idea. Isn’t that what motivates you to do science[2]? That you can leave behind results that stand on their own merits, even if your name and reputation are forgotten?
Yes! That’s me. Glad you liked it. Indeed, I went to that exhibit while I was coding up the Chernocubes :).
I also found you, Mr. Kennaway. Love to see you have some interesting work done with former CWI scientists.