No, I'm not going anywhere (for a while). But as AI cuts the cost of writing almost to zero, I am thinking more than ever about how best to work for you.
You are the only email in my inbox that I read... because you don't write too much and whatever topics you bring up are important and interesting. I am sad that AI is taking over writing. You can always tell if its a person or not doing the writing - I hands down prefer real people.
I have long called Ai writing automated plagiarism. It is not coming up with something new; it is poaching what humans have written and published. When humans stop creating, Ai will either become very repetitive or starve. At least that is my theory. What happens when people stop posting original content? My main Ai concern (other than it attempting to kill us like in various Star Trek episodes) is that in a generation or two at the most, people will accept whatever Ai puts out and won't know it is wrong or crap like we do today. I could go on but I will keep it short this time because as of now, I still have work to do!
This is exactly what it is. I look at anyone posting anything as content creators, and the AI as nothing more than a programmed curator, with "learning" based on algorithms provided and controlled by the usual gatekeepers of thought.
What I suspect may eventually happen is that the ratio of internet content will begin to favor AI itself, as AI consumes and recycles its own regurgitated propaganda, eventually making the entire internet as bland and stupid as the propagandists trying to control it.
I wish I could remember where I read it, but apparently this regression to the mean/mediocrity as AI begins to eat itself may be a best case scenario. Apparently some AI scientists are concerned that AI trained on AI output will become not so much bland as wildly irrational. Or something like that. Again, wish I had the citation/reference for this.
Not just wildly irrational, but subtly and unpredictably wrong in ways that could and do lead to horrific consequences. The problem of AI and the reason we don't understand its dangers is not because of the AI itself and what future iterations of it may bring. It is still just a tool. The problem is in the way humans respond to inputs - words, images, video, whatever. When you use powerful tools that you don't exactly understand or know how to use, you eventually screw up. Maybe you just break something, maybe you cut off your finger, maybe you bomb a school. I think this is what people mean when they say things about AI "taking over" or "killing us" or whatever.
And you don't need a citation from any of these geniuses. Their imaginations are no better than yours or mine.
AI does not investigate, AI is not creative, AI is imperfect in a way that humans are not (and the reverse), AI cannot make a determination between a conspiracy or simply the stupidity of actors/participants...
I want a real human being to write the books and articles I read. I wish I were talented enough to make just an average living for writing books and articles. It is a blessing to be able to make a living doing so. I think you are great! I was so happy that you stood up for those of us who wouldn’t comply during covid. I know you are truthful and do your research to get us the best information out there. I would interested in buying a t-shirt. I will gladly advertise for you.
I'd love a T-shirt that had a classic AB LONG paragraph (maybe even what got you censored off Twitter) and in large print - "No AI was used in this writing!"
fwiw I can spot AI writing pretty consistently. It is unimaginative and formulaic. If I queried "write an article about marijuana in the style of Alex Berenson" I can almost promise you you'd see the above qualities stand out from the real thing in Tell Your Children.
“And they produce faster and more cheaply than any human writer can.” This is something I’d love for you to delve into further. Just what is the actual cost - in terms of energy and other resources consumed - of AI? What is the carbon footprint of an article or a video generated by AI? I’m skeptical that AI’s output is actually cheap. It seems extremely costly to me, and this doesn’t even scratch the surface of humanity’s cognitive costs.
I saw a meme while ago that said something to the effect of “AI data centers require massive electrical grids to power whereas humans only need a little cocaine and Diet Coke.” Kinda humorous, but I’m very interested in the questions that underpin the whole “AI Is So Cheap & Efficient Scaffolding” that is being erected at warp speed.
Excellent point! ACTUAL COST! (Not like the 'cheaper' through the vast transfer of production moved overseas we've experienced.) 'Actual' can be the full - including adjacent - monetary; then there is the cultural, spiritual degradation of society 'COST.'
Indeed! A human brain runs on about 20 watts. From the EU’s Human Brain Project: “In contrast to power-hungry computers, brains have evolved to be energy-efficient. It is estimated that a human brain uses roughly 20 Watts to work – that is equivalent to the energy consumption of your computer monitor alone, in sleep mode. On this shoe-string budget, 80–100 billion neurons are capable of performing trillions of operations that would require the power of a small hydroelectric plant if they were done artificially.”
Writing as well as a Harvard student is no longer much of an accomplishment. At least half its students are legacy admissions, and most of the rest are DEI.
I don't know for sure but it appears major newspapers are using AI for editing.
Over the past year I have noticed many of what I thought were "typos" in every issue.
Sometimes a word is left out (particularly egregious when the word is "not"). Sometimes it's a wrong word. Sometimes the caption doesn't match the photo or misidentifies the person in the photo. Sometimes it's a factual error. I can pick it up because I'm familiar with the subjects (usually). I worry about readers who are not widely-read or too young to know the history of the subject in question. Mostly I worry about being led into World War III.
Rock on, Alex! Don't change a thing. There are enough people out there who still prefer to hear what a human has to offer over a machine generated article. I am a fairly new UT subscriber who does not subscribe to to any other on-line publication. I guess that makes you special!
I use AI pretty much every day as a search tool, to write code, and to help me assemble materials. It is very good at these things, although it does require significant back and forth with me. At this point, however, it doesn't really have good judgment. It doesn't have its own experience in the world to draw from. It doesn't have its own voice.
The work of creative people becomes more valuable as the noise of the world gets louder.
👏👏👏 As a writer myself, I am so heartened to read this post. And as a reader, I am grateful for your commitment!
Keep up the great work — that YOUR brain is doing! It is much appreciated!
I'm heartened that AI still sucks.
You are the only email in my inbox that I read... because you don't write too much and whatever topics you bring up are important and interesting. I am sad that AI is taking over writing. You can always tell if its a person or not doing the writing - I hands down prefer real people.
I have long called Ai writing automated plagiarism. It is not coming up with something new; it is poaching what humans have written and published. When humans stop creating, Ai will either become very repetitive or starve. At least that is my theory. What happens when people stop posting original content? My main Ai concern (other than it attempting to kill us like in various Star Trek episodes) is that in a generation or two at the most, people will accept whatever Ai puts out and won't know it is wrong or crap like we do today. I could go on but I will keep it short this time because as of now, I still have work to do!
In the 1930s Wilson Mizner once quipped, "If you steal from one author, it's plagiarism; if you steal from many, it's research."
This is exactly what it is. I look at anyone posting anything as content creators, and the AI as nothing more than a programmed curator, with "learning" based on algorithms provided and controlled by the usual gatekeepers of thought.
What I suspect may eventually happen is that the ratio of internet content will begin to favor AI itself, as AI consumes and recycles its own regurgitated propaganda, eventually making the entire internet as bland and stupid as the propagandists trying to control it.
I wish I could remember where I read it, but apparently this regression to the mean/mediocrity as AI begins to eat itself may be a best case scenario. Apparently some AI scientists are concerned that AI trained on AI output will become not so much bland as wildly irrational. Or something like that. Again, wish I had the citation/reference for this.
Not just wildly irrational, but subtly and unpredictably wrong in ways that could and do lead to horrific consequences. The problem of AI and the reason we don't understand its dangers is not because of the AI itself and what future iterations of it may bring. It is still just a tool. The problem is in the way humans respond to inputs - words, images, video, whatever. When you use powerful tools that you don't exactly understand or know how to use, you eventually screw up. Maybe you just break something, maybe you cut off your finger, maybe you bomb a school. I think this is what people mean when they say things about AI "taking over" or "killing us" or whatever.
And you don't need a citation from any of these geniuses. Their imaginations are no better than yours or mine.
THIS!
Exactly
I hate all the soulless AI slop out there and I unsubscribe from those who push it. Thank you for staying pure.
AI does not investigate, AI is not creative, AI is imperfect in a way that humans are not (and the reverse), AI cannot make a determination between a conspiracy or simply the stupidity of actors/participants...
I will go with you.
I want a real human being to write the books and articles I read. I wish I were talented enough to make just an average living for writing books and articles. It is a blessing to be able to make a living doing so. I think you are great! I was so happy that you stood up for those of us who wouldn’t comply during covid. I know you are truthful and do your research to get us the best information out there. I would interested in buying a t-shirt. I will gladly advertise for you.
I'd love a T-shirt that had a classic AB LONG paragraph (maybe even what got you censored off Twitter) and in large print - "No AI was used in this writing!"
fwiw I can spot AI writing pretty consistently. It is unimaginative and formulaic. If I queried "write an article about marijuana in the style of Alex Berenson" I can almost promise you you'd see the above qualities stand out from the real thing in Tell Your Children.
“And they produce faster and more cheaply than any human writer can.” This is something I’d love for you to delve into further. Just what is the actual cost - in terms of energy and other resources consumed - of AI? What is the carbon footprint of an article or a video generated by AI? I’m skeptical that AI’s output is actually cheap. It seems extremely costly to me, and this doesn’t even scratch the surface of humanity’s cognitive costs.
I saw a meme while ago that said something to the effect of “AI data centers require massive electrical grids to power whereas humans only need a little cocaine and Diet Coke.” Kinda humorous, but I’m very interested in the questions that underpin the whole “AI Is So Cheap & Efficient Scaffolding” that is being erected at warp speed.
Excellent point! ACTUAL COST! (Not like the 'cheaper' through the vast transfer of production moved overseas we've experienced.) 'Actual' can be the full - including adjacent - monetary; then there is the cultural, spiritual degradation of society 'COST.'
Indeed! A human brain runs on about 20 watts. From the EU’s Human Brain Project: “In contrast to power-hungry computers, brains have evolved to be energy-efficient. It is estimated that a human brain uses roughly 20 Watts to work – that is equivalent to the energy consumption of your computer monitor alone, in sleep mode. On this shoe-string budget, 80–100 billion neurons are capable of performing trillions of operations that would require the power of a small hydroelectric plant if they were done artificially.”
https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/follow-hbp/news/2023/09/04/learning-brain-make-ai-more-energy-efficient/
This is so cool. Thank you for responding to my comment!!
No illicit drugs, lots of Diet Coke, 😆
“AI can now write as well as students at schools like Harvard” and probably think more logically than 90% of the left wing professors there.
Writing as well as a Harvard student is no longer much of an accomplishment. At least half its students are legacy admissions, and most of the rest are DEI.
Thank you for keeping it human.
I don't know for sure but it appears major newspapers are using AI for editing.
Over the past year I have noticed many of what I thought were "typos" in every issue.
Sometimes a word is left out (particularly egregious when the word is "not"). Sometimes it's a wrong word. Sometimes the caption doesn't match the photo or misidentifies the person in the photo. Sometimes it's a factual error. I can pick it up because I'm familiar with the subjects (usually). I worry about readers who are not widely-read or too young to know the history of the subject in question. Mostly I worry about being led into World War III.
Rock on, Alex! Don't change a thing. There are enough people out there who still prefer to hear what a human has to offer over a machine generated article. I am a fairly new UT subscriber who does not subscribe to to any other on-line publication. I guess that makes you special!
John Cassidy
Thanks for not caving in to what is easy.
I use AI pretty much every day as a search tool, to write code, and to help me assemble materials. It is very good at these things, although it does require significant back and forth with me. At this point, however, it doesn't really have good judgment. It doesn't have its own experience in the world to draw from. It doesn't have its own voice.
The work of creative people becomes more valuable as the noise of the world gets louder.
Thanks, Alex. No to Ai.
Thank you, Alex!!