←back to thread

296 points jakub_g | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.288s | source
Show context
hliyan ◴[] No.45012749[source]
A chill ran down my spine as I imagined this being applied to the written word online: my articles being automatically "corrected" or "improved" the moment I hit publish, any book manuscripts being sent to editors being similarly "polished" to a point that we humans start to lose our unique tone and everything we read falls into that strange uncanny valley where everything reads ok, you can't quite put your finger on it, but it feels like something is wearing the skin of what you wrote as a face.
replies(12): >>45012940 #>>45013081 #>>45013106 #>>45013184 #>>45013226 #>>45013285 #>>45013423 #>>45013918 #>>45014061 #>>45014113 #>>45015666 #>>45022301 #
ta8645 ◴[] No.45013184[source]
My guess is that guys being replaced by the steam shovel said the same thing about the quality of holes being dug into the ground. "No machine is ever going to be able to dig a hole as lovingly or as accurately as a man with a shovel". "The digging machines consume way too much energy" etc.

I'm pretty sure all the hand wringing about A.I. is going to fade into the past in the same way as every other strand of technophobia has before.

replies(9): >>45013278 #>>45013417 #>>45013457 #>>45013478 #>>45013489 #>>45013608 #>>45015167 #>>45015575 #>>45019603 #
therobots927 ◴[] No.45013417[source]
You realize that making an analogy doesn't make your argument correct, right? And comparing digging through the ground to human thought and creativity is an odd mix of self debasement and arrogance. I'm guessing there is an unspoken financial incentive guiding your point of view.
replies(1): >>45013510 #
lotsofpulp ◴[] No.45013510[source]
ta8645 did not make an analogy, nor did they use it to support an argument.

They posited that a similar series of events happen before, and predicted they will happen again.

replies(2): >>45013537 #>>45014437 #
1. therobots927 ◴[] No.45013537[source]
That's the definition of using an analogy to support an argument.