Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)ZO
Posts
0
Comments
249
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Yeh I feel you, I used to be the same way actually. Gradually over time my habits changed and now I look forward to the Discovery playlist each week. But I totally get where you're coming from, I used to just listen to the same artist over and over ha ha.

  • I didn't say anything about the sources being incongruent? That's a completely separate issue. We were talking about plagiarism.

    I don't understand the morality comment either, I didn't ascribe any morality to AI, I was talking about whether using them fits the definition of plagiarism or not.

    If you are expected to write it yourself, and you use an LLM to generate it, then that's cheating in my opinion. Yes, of course we shoukd learn to use AI, but if you are told to do something and you get a person or LLM to do it for you, then you didn't complete the task as you were told. And at university that can have consequences.

  • Eh, I'm a full album guy (Pink Floyd ftw) but I still enjoy Spotify. I've been introduced to a lot of good music I probably wouldn't have found otherwise, and sometimes I'm just not in the mood to commit to a full album.

  • I don't know about AI, but there are already computer programs that try many different combinations of, for example, chemical structures with known pharmacological properties and then output new drugs that could possibly be used to treat something. Of course you have to verify with research and studies.

    I'm sure there will be AI's or machine learning programs, if not already, that can do this as well and perhaps improve upon the process. But they would need to be specifically trained for that purpose. ChatGPT is a LLM, it's made to generate language that fits a given prompt, I would not expect it to be great at creating cancer treatments and I'm not sure why we needed a study to learn that. OpenAI tells you already that the results can be inaccurate or outright wrong.

  • I can understand the plagiarism argument, though you have to extend the definition of it. If I am expected to write an essay, but I use ChatGPT instead, then I am fraudulently presenting the work as my own. Plagiarism might not be the right word, or maybe it's a case where language is going to evolve so that plagiarism includes passing off AI generated work as your own. Either way it's cheating unless I was specifically allowed to use AI.

  • Reddit is fine if you only look at user numbers.

    If you consider things like overall satisfaction with the site and profitability though, they are in trouble. That's why they are introducing that embarrassing crypto shit, they are desperate to somehow monetize the site.