I have been giving some thought as to why Western societies (I cannot speak for others) who put so much store in individuality and self expression and identity are so willing to let an #LLM in the form of an #AI chat bot speak for them.
-
I think one reason is that most chat bots are designed to encourage users to believe that they are 'working together'. This is utterly false, but it credits the user with work they aren't doing, which feels good.
Another could be that, despite all the outlets for personal expression, it is very easy to feel like one's voice isn't heard and doesn't matter. In that case, what does it matter if one's voice is being usurped.
Have you got any theories?
@Remittancegirl I think it is convenience. In the US especially, we are willing to trade almost anything for convenience. We have flattened and commodified personalities and packaged them in neat virtual boxes. You can now pay for a voice, ideas, etc., without expending time or energy or labor-power.
The consequence is the rationalization of identities…at least in digital spaces. Personalities blur together in a grey sloppy mess - bland, lifeless, and hollowed out.
-
@MissConstrue @Remittancegirl And the ironic thing is that what comes out desperately needs editing. That's what I don't understand—how can people use it *as is*? I reckon a human first draft¹ can typically be reduced by about a third without losing any content, and the LLM stuff is worse because a lot of the actual content is irrelevant too. You'd think people would at least remove the irrelevant stuff and change some of the words to ones they themselves use.
_____
¹ if I'm the human, anyway@MissConstrue @Remittancegirl And in doing that, I suspect they'd discover that they know better than the machine what they want to say, and that they can express it more clearly too.
(Edit: that could be "and how to say it clearly", for a start . . . but I'd prefer "and how to clearly say it", but definitely not "and how clearly to say it". And a grammar checker would object to my choice.)
-
@clarissawam @Remittancegirl @passenger
As soon as a broad category of activities is deemed immoral, reason went out of the window. Impossible to start any reasoned discussions as soon as people begin to shout "theft" irreflexively.
Of course I agree that billionaires are comfortably riding on the blood, sweat, and tears of humankind.
But that's capitalism, people feel very strongly about the symptoms and dedicate too little time, or spare any thoughts to combat the causes of injustice.
@vruz @Remittancegirl @passenger Yeah, I’m also not a big fan of capitalism in general. Burn it all the fuck down. (ETA climate change will soon do the job for us.)
-
@Remittancegirl I think it is convenience. In the US especially, we are willing to trade almost anything for convenience. We have flattened and commodified personalities and packaged them in neat virtual boxes. You can now pay for a voice, ideas, etc., without expending time or energy or labor-power.
The consequence is the rationalization of identities…at least in digital spaces. Personalities blur together in a grey sloppy mess - bland, lifeless, and hollowed out.
@Remittancegirl adding one more thought - the current of AI is strongly connected to neoliberalism. I am thinking of Foucault’s lectures in The Birth of Biopolitics. Foucault argues that neoliberalism transforms people into micro-enterprises. People become entrepreneurs of themselves - constantly pursuing knowledge and capital to invest in their career and increase their earning potential. AI is largely marketed to support this process - 10x your skill set with ChatGPT!
-
I think one reason is that most chat bots are designed to encourage users to believe that they are 'working together'. This is utterly false, but it credits the user with work they aren't doing, which feels good.
Another could be that, despite all the outlets for personal expression, it is very easy to feel like one's voice isn't heard and doesn't matter. In that case, what does it matter if one's voice is being usurped.
Have you got any theories?
@Remittancegirl Quick theory: This is exactly what the techbros of the big AI corporations want to disrupt and kill - look at their fascist death cult of TESCREAL ideologies. Individuals are less governable.
They get people like all cults: with convenience, emotions (their marketing), and a promise in wild times: everything becomes easier, simple answers, don't fear these very different (diverse) people, they all will become like you, you are the best (says chatbot).
Pure fascist cult work. -
If we want people to use their own voices, we need to understand what they're getting out of allowing #AI to speak for them (which in essence is always AI speaking pretending to have one's best interests at heart which is a laughable falsehood)
It also occurs to me that correcting someone when they do speak for themselves - inexpertly or haltingly or confusingly - is a fairly large wound to their self-esteem.
That fear of a lack of eloquence, I think, also drives people to AI.
@Remittancegirl the people that value bullshit are delighted at the automated bullshit machines and have always required others to pad their writing feed their bullshit obsession. "Professional style".
I still get a certain amount of flak for writing emails that are to the point rather than containing paragraphs of what I think of as "linkedinese" in order to display imagined erudition rather than just say what needs saying.
-
I think one reason is that most chat bots are designed to encourage users to believe that they are 'working together'. This is utterly false, but it credits the user with work they aren't doing, which feels good.
Another could be that, despite all the outlets for personal expression, it is very easy to feel like one's voice isn't heard and doesn't matter. In that case, what does it matter if one's voice is being usurped.
Have you got any theories?
@Remittancegirl here's one more: it's surely irrefutable that the style of LLMs is closer to majority populations' way of writing. I never saw an LLMs sound flamboyantly gay or use African American Vernacular, for example. And so the effort inherent in "just write the cover letter yourself" surely varies dramatically depending on who's writing it and the gulf between the two styles.
-
@Remittancegirl Duolingo lets you think you spent a little money and you learned a lot of language, where in reality you probably learned how to play Duolingo. YouTube Shorts make you smile, and smile, and maybe laugh, and smile, and more and more they're empty robotic voices telling you DID YOU KNOW. And LLMs give you instant satisfaction when you wanted something. If you don't have it clear in your mind that the road matters, you just want to get to the destination.
@adriano yes ... endorphines are set free, then comes addiction.
@Remittancegirl -
I have been giving some thought as to why Western societies (I cannot speak for others) who put so much store in individuality and self expression and identity are so willing to let an #LLM in the form of an #AI chat bot speak for them. Because essentially, when you ask AI to write something for you, that is what you're doing.
Why are we so eager to have our own voices usurped? 1/
@Remittancegirl I think a lot of the attraction is that people believe there's one right way to say something, and they're insecure about their ability to say things that way.
If you get a chat bot to phrase things in the "right" way, (like you might get a calculator to add up numbers in the right way) then there's no difference (according to this way of thinking) to saying it yourself.It takes quite a lot of experience with being creative to realise that there are many right ways to say something and the version you choose is your voice.
I don't think these people realise what they're giving up.
-
@MissConstrue @Remittancegirl And the ironic thing is that what comes out desperately needs editing. That's what I don't understand—how can people use it *as is*? I reckon a human first draft¹ can typically be reduced by about a third without losing any content, and the LLM stuff is worse because a lot of the actual content is irrelevant too. You'd think people would at least remove the irrelevant stuff and change some of the words to ones they themselves use.
_____
¹ if I'm the human, anyway@timtfj IMHO laypeople don't see these differences. I remember those debates with potential customers for translations who told me that the machine can do the same work.
People who never analysed what it takes to write the first page of a novel, suddenly produce hundreds of pages by some clicks. They sound like language. They were never educated to see the differences.
It's a bit like the naked emperor, who doesn't recognise that he has no clothes. -
M mjack@mastodon.bsd.cafe shared this topic
