←back to thread

296 points jakub_g | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | 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 #
thisisit ◴[] No.45013285[source]
Everything has to be produced on an assembly line. No mistakes allowed. Especially creativity. /s
replies(1): >>45014173 #
datadrivenangel ◴[] No.45014173[source]
the /s is sarcastic right? Artisanal creativity isn't efficient enough.
replies(1): >>45015246 #
1. gnerd00 ◴[] No.45015246[source]
you realize how ridiculous this is, in some ways, since a "master copy" of anything that is reproduced, is just like reproducing a machine-stamped master copy.. in the digital artifacts world, it is even more true