> This kind of comment loses a lot of its weight by being posted here on HN instead of sent privately. If this were really a good-faith question, a DM would have done it.
I'm sorry if it came across as a personal attack, it wasn't the intention.
It felt like the right place to comment. The article is public, the accusations are public, the licence is public and you made your position on generative AI public on the human-emacs project.
You expressed your position on the human-emacs publicly and we had a good discussion over it, in public. To me, this was on the same level.
I don't think that half of a conversation should be done via DM, while the other is made public.
> This is the real damage this kind of thing does. It breaks the quiet deal that used to exist between a writer and a reader: you put out content, and got at least some minimal credit for the work behind it. Now there's none of that left. No credit, no gratitude, not even the confidence that a human read it. That's exactly why there's less and less original content being written.
I agree, but you have to blame the right entity here. It's not the readers' fault that a deluge of AI generated content flooded the internet.
Generative AI broke that "quiet deal", not the readers. The readers are as much a victim as is the author who writes the content.
Generative AI came with a ton of negative side effects for the entire population. This is one of them.
Interestingly enough I read your article in elfeed, and came here for the comments as I was getting suspicious of the use of generative AI, which I refuse to read.
blog now disclose: "AI is one more tool. I use it for mechanical tasks: polishing the wording, catching typos, suggesting synonyms, improving or adapting code blocks and translating the article between Spanish and English."
I'm sorry if it came across as a personal attack, it wasn't the intention.
It felt like the right place to comment. The article is public, the accusations are public, the licence is public and you made your position on generative AI public on the human-emacs project.
You expressed your position on the human-emacs publicly and we had a good discussion over it, in public. To me, this was on the same level.
I don't think that half of a conversation should be done via DM, while the other is made public.
> This is the real damage this kind of thing does. It breaks the quiet deal that used to exist between a writer and a reader: you put out content, and got at least some minimal credit for the work behind it. Now there's none of that left. No credit, no gratitude, not even the confidence that a human read it. That's exactly why there's less and less original content being written.
I agree, but you have to blame the right entity here. It's not the readers' fault that a deluge of AI generated content flooded the internet.
Generative AI broke that "quiet deal", not the readers. The readers are as much a victim as is the author who writes the content.
Generative AI came with a ton of negative side effects for the entire population. This is one of them.
Interestingly enough I read your article in elfeed, and came here for the comments as I was getting suspicious of the use of generative AI, which I refuse to read.
The sentence that pushed my suspicions over the edge is the follow up article (https://en.andros.dev/blog/bd74e61a/were-fighting-over-the-w...) which starts with:
> A while ago I published HTML over WebSockets.
"A while ago" being the day before.
EDIT: on second thought, you might have drafted this weeks before publishing and simply forgot to edit it out.