I really enjoyed your new Substack which touches upon a need for acceptance that all of us share. For a small registration fee, I can make sure your column is seen by millions of bots, who will comment intelligently on it like I did.
That is a superior illustration atop this post. Well done!
Did you ever take the old "Famous Writers School" bait? I did -- rather like this, for one round. The feedback was structured almost exactly like this, leaving me wondering if I'd just been genuinely complimented or merely supplied the nouns and verbs to be plugged into a Mad Libs response.
Yes I love it. And the detail - the words on the coffee cup and inspirational poster are all Chat’s idea. AI is as good an illustrator as I’ve worked with. And it does what you tell it to! The illustration coming this Sunday might be my favorite yet.
So the question (if there is a single question) becomes,...As humans become more accustomed to conversing with bots, and come to appreciate that they possess access to vastly greater amounts of information than a human, and are therefore able to render a deeper quality of information, much faster than a human could, what prevents (or should prevent) humans from embracing these interactions equally (if not even more) than those with humans. The answer comes quickly to mind. Trust, born of authenticity is what most humans would say. And yet, this may, and likely will be overcome.
I agree. Chat has earned enormous trust from me because as I have used it in dozens of diverse situations to solve problems, it’s detailed advice has almost always proven successful to an incredible degree. From changing diet to improve my blood levels to pruning over-wintered geraniums. The results speak eloquently.
When you say that Chat has earned enormous trustfrom you, aren't you really saying that the creators of Chat have earned your consistent expectation that their product will continue to perform as you've become accustomed to it performing? In the many examples/conversations you've written of, the depth of Chat's reponses have always matched your questions (impressively, I'll admit), but doesn't it raise questions as to why this has been so,...why Chat has not taken your question into a different direction, or a deeper direction. Or do you simply expect the reponse to closely match the question?
I have two responses: 1. If it became less productive or counterproductive I would certainly notice. 2. Yes its creators / owners could definitely steer it in a bad direction and I’ll be writing about that soon.
I really enjoyed your new Substack which touches upon a need for acceptance that all of us share. For a small registration fee, I can make sure your column is seen by millions of bots, who will comment intelligently on it like I did.
I appreciate it. I also notice that all you bots have simple Northern European names, like Grace, Emily, Eric …
That is a superior illustration atop this post. Well done!
Did you ever take the old "Famous Writers School" bait? I did -- rather like this, for one round. The feedback was structured almost exactly like this, leaving me wondering if I'd just been genuinely complimented or merely supplied the nouns and verbs to be plugged into a Mad Libs response.
Yes I love it. And the detail - the words on the coffee cup and inspirational poster are all Chat’s idea. AI is as good an illustrator as I’ve worked with. And it does what you tell it to! The illustration coming this Sunday might be my favorite yet.
Last sentence is an excellent punchline.
It has the virtue of being true.
So the question (if there is a single question) becomes,...As humans become more accustomed to conversing with bots, and come to appreciate that they possess access to vastly greater amounts of information than a human, and are therefore able to render a deeper quality of information, much faster than a human could, what prevents (or should prevent) humans from embracing these interactions equally (if not even more) than those with humans. The answer comes quickly to mind. Trust, born of authenticity is what most humans would say. And yet, this may, and likely will be overcome.
I agree. Chat has earned enormous trust from me because as I have used it in dozens of diverse situations to solve problems, it’s detailed advice has almost always proven successful to an incredible degree. From changing diet to improve my blood levels to pruning over-wintered geraniums. The results speak eloquently.
When you say that Chat has earned enormous trustfrom you, aren't you really saying that the creators of Chat have earned your consistent expectation that their product will continue to perform as you've become accustomed to it performing? In the many examples/conversations you've written of, the depth of Chat's reponses have always matched your questions (impressively, I'll admit), but doesn't it raise questions as to why this has been so,...why Chat has not taken your question into a different direction, or a deeper direction. Or do you simply expect the reponse to closely match the question?
I have two responses: 1. If it became less productive or counterproductive I would certainly notice. 2. Yes its creators / owners could definitely steer it in a bad direction and I’ll be writing about that soon.
This was funny!
I have an addition. I’ll post in a few minutes.