This looks super fun!
@jeremydauber
Professor at Columbia; writer of books; poster of thoughts about movies, books, comics, music, other stuff. Stoker-nominated author of AMERICAN SCARY; PRESS 1 FOR INVASION for middle-graders from Simon and Schuster OUT NOW!
This looks super fun!
I would like to see it.
The AI Watchdog series is a project by Alex Reisner and it has been an invaluable investigative tool for authors and artists.
I don't know why you're giving the people of Maine this much power, but I guess NH decides if we have six more weeks of winter, so fair enough
Would love to see if some excellent lawyers (like, as someone o here suggested, Stephen King's) would be able to shatter it...
I think @theatlantic.com should do a similar thing with Grammarly that they did with the...Anthropic list of books? Assemble a database to see whose names are being used?
I'm really wondering, as I've said on here several times tonight, whether we're in class action territory
I agree with the impulse, for sure; I do wonder - and I have no idea; I'm no lawyer - if going along w/their opt out approach immunizes them from a claim you make against them? Would love to know what people who know more than me think about this. To be clear, I think legal action should be taken.
Mazel tov!!
I defer to people who are actually on grammarly, but, quite frankly, from what I'm seeing it seems like a lot!
just posted basically the same thing!
An honest question to lawyers out here (like @akivamcohen.bsky.social): is this grounds for a class action lawsuit, if you are one of the authors involved? (Not sure if I am or not, but theoretically possible....)
Is there a way of finding out if you're one of the "experts" without signing up?
Dire
the textual wheel always turns
...and aside from being myopic about our own blind spots in our own behavior and thinking, it also is a bad, flattening way of thinking about the past and the people who lived there!
I agree with this entirely. I talk, in class, a lot about an ethos of charity, not only towards fellow students, but towards the text, and also an ethos of humility - we're often wrapped up in feelings of temporal chauvinism, of "well, obviously those writers back *then* were [fill in the blank]"...
A good and thoughtful piece, a lot in there - I'll say that the classes I've been teaching that have been tech-free in the classroom have been among the most vibrant and participatory that I've had in years, and (although I'm the last person you should ask) the students seem to feel the same way...
I think this is very powerful and deeply empathetic
I remember, once, someone describing Donald Trump as a poor person's idea of a rich person, which always stuck with me (though alas, I don't remember whose insight it was); and I was just wondering whether LLMs are, sometimes, analogously, an unthinking person's idea of a thoughtful person....
A Fran Liebowitz-ism, i thiiink (but maybe tangled in Greydon Carter's "Spy" crusade against Trump, so i've seen it attributed both ways). And, yes! A sort of "uncurious/inexpert's understanding of what expertise is" maybe?
I like this!
rather than the effortful, awkward, messy, charming, vastly more interesting product of thought itself. But it *looks* like someone has thought hard about it!
I don't think, exactly, that they're an unintelligent person's idea of an intelligent person - that's not quite right - and it's not a thoughtless person's idea either. But when I read some AI work (and again, this is LLM-generated stuff), it frequently feels like the simulacrum of thoughtfulness
I remember, once, someone describing Donald Trump as a poor person's idea of a rich person, which always stuck with me (though alas, I don't remember whose insight it was); and I was just wondering whether LLMs are, sometimes, analogously, an unthinking person's idea of a thoughtful person....
Best explanation I've seen so far!
Gloria Stuart starred in the original INVISIBLE MAN and walked the red carpet with Leonardo DiCaprio
I know..I mean, I've overlooked a bunch of typos in my various books, even after having read them a lot of times, so I shouldn't cavil, but this one seems kind of egregious (and, of course, if it's not a typo, then even worse....)
This is not the main point here, but why is 'Times' in single quotes like that?
Final posting of yesterday's note!
beautifully put!