John Warner's first paragraph reads as a 'mission accomplished' moment, but when your "data points" include a couple of NY Times opinion pieces and a strategically-interpreted Ethan Mollick post, you don't have data points. Now to be clear, I think there is a great deal of value in person-to-person interaction. And it is in many cases what we (as humans) really prefer. But it doesn't follow that AI are necessarily bad at writing. And it's simply not true that "writing is an inherently human activity." Sure, there's a lot of room for AI writing to improve, but it already exceeds a lot of bad human writing (this Cost of Living segment on CBC today sounds exactly like Notebook LM). There are many cases where AI writing may be preferred to human writing: giving directions or instructions, for example.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
