Sky Blue..."Same as it ever was.." I don't know if that was an intentional Talking Heads lyric reference...but... I DO know...it's looping in my head right NOW..in David Byrne's voice lol
The hard part...the one you named...is the real one. Restraint...FEELS like losing...at first.
It isn't; it just doesn't give you that BIG...WHOPPING hit of adrenaline...that, admittedly... can be kind of addicting...that arguing does.
The thing few people mention...is the silence gets easier...once you stop treating it as something you're "giving up." You're not withholding an answer. You're declining a fight... that had no winning move in it.
Sounds like you learned that the long way. It seems most of us do.
Judith...or..explain once...and be done. For the reasons I laid out...there is no "defense" that can satisfy anyone more focused on "spotting AI" than absorbing useful ideas.
So...don't. You won't make them happy...and you'll waste valuable time.
Those who see the value...will grab it. Those who don't...won't. It's how it's always been...and how it will always be.
I have been writing since I could hold a pencil. More or less continuously. And older than the internet myself, by a lot. AI is a tool, like any tool, (especially with new, sharp, cutting-edged stuff), folks should learn to use it first and well lest it lop off a finger. A little harder with AI, it seems like it went from a “Skynet” fantasy to being dangerously powerful with no user manual and certainly no red triangles plastered all over it. And developing so rapidly the people who created it even seem worried. As you might say, sit with that a minute.
It would never occur to me to use AI for anything serious, let alone compose an entire piece, or just about anything you describe. I really enjoyed your tiny peek behind the curtain, probably one of the things that I appreciate here is your candor and style, it takes a lot to be unique these days, especially in a world now dominated, it seems, with misapprehensions, lies and falsehoods.
I was planning to digitize my journals going back to 1969 probably but never got around to it… “this is boring, who cares what I did in science class on Tuesday.. “ then in 2018 the Camp wildfire came along and more or less permanently ended *that* plan. (Pro tip: don’t postpone or be casual about irreplaceable stuff).
I think me being AI shy is only in this area, I have had some interesting chats with Claude (I picked Anthropic before I even knew they weren’t totally evil, at least not yet) and we’ve had some fun sessions, answering meaningless questions that maybe while meaningless, have stayed with me a long time. A really long time. Many of our chats end up being about music; obscure stuff, my craw of curiosity has always been full- and this remains an area that can be difficult to find answers in the usual places. (Yesterday we got into a good one about the original Apple iPod. I’ll spare y’all. For now.).
Pangram is totally unreliable. If you want the full analysis, check out Sam Illingworth at Slow AI on Substack.
That being said, the only time I have a problem with AI usage is when a Substack author is probably using it but doesn't say so. I've long suspected your writing, Jack, no offense. But I didn't need Pangram to suggest that. I have eyes. Either spell out your AI policy clearly (because you're either using it or not) or don't expect a subscription for me. Like organic produce... I can't taste the difference. The difference is the process and my being comfortable with it either way.
I have directly asked two different Substack authors for their policies and yes, it's because I personally, a human, detected homogenized language in most of their posts that I have come to associate with AI. I didn't accuse, however. I asked. They were both active in their comments sections but neither answered. Not a subscriber now.
First of all, it matters to me because I think using AI is in many ways an insult to the reader. I want the messy, complicated thoughts. That's where the aha! moments live for both the author and the reader. No, I don't need it cleaned up by a machine (I call it homogenized) for me to be able to understand you. A machine doesn't understand nuance. That said, if an author is trying to convey a lot of data with sources, I'm not opposed to assistive AI. It's a lot easier to read a data heavy analysis when it's summarized and it'smore easily parsed.
Some writers I know say they use AI, say how and humanize the work themselves and you can tell. You don't get that sense of AI generated writing, the specific language that's a hallmark. You guys seem to think we can't tell without a tool but when you see it, you start seeing it all over certain pieces. Then add a lack of transparency and I'm done, even if the work seemed valuable. It's not a witch hunt. It's an unwillingness to read AI slop. Because good information doesn't come from a machine. It comes from the human, even when they use the machine to help. But if you're not telling me which pSrts you needed help with, maybe you needed help with all of it and that's not what I'm paying for.
Just fricking say so. That's it. That's the bar. Especially when I'm asking you directly because yeah, fuck Pangram.
You told me you've LONG SUSPECTED my writing. You told me it "insults" the reader. You told me you have "eyes."
Then...you asked for my policy...with a subscription held over it as leverage.
That...Angie...was not a "question." That's a verdict...Angie...looking for a confession.
The policy you demanded is IN the article...the one you're commenting under.
Research through ChatGPT and Claude; I pick the sources...make the arguments...write the sentences.
You could have read three paragraphs before deciding what I am.
Here's the part you should consider sitting with...seriously: you spent this entire comment ...explaining that Pangram is UNRELIABLE... because it operates on inference...rather than proof.
Then...you did the SAME thing...with your EYE... and called it "detection."
The word doesn't run on suspicion. Neither does anything ELSE worth building.
Take a refund...email support, done today. This way, you will be very clear about which part you are paying for...because you...won't be paying for any of it. Pretty straightforward...and fairly simple.
Find a writer you don't have to audit. Whatever you're looking for...you'll find it there too...because you brought it with you.
I also don't know where to find the standard that you are saying every Substack author should state once. Where? At the bottom of a single article? In the profile? I read where you said you use it for research. Is that your standard? If so, it gets a pass from me because you stated it clearly. The only reason Ive ever wondered is the short punchy one or two sentences framework you use. Except that I've seen lots of writers who use that style organically. So I never presumed, never needed Pangram. Just.. wondered. And left it at that. I do appreciate the clarity, as I said in my rant above.
THAT'S WHY people LIE to your face!
They want YOU to feel the NEED to DEFEND yourself against their LIES!
To put YOU on the DEFENSIVE!
Say what you believe..
Then STICK to IT!!!
You OWE them NOTHING!!
Jack has a GREAT response for US...
Basically saying that "I still stand behind what I feel and said".
🎶Same as it ever was..
Same as it ever was..🎶
Sky Blue..."Same as it ever was.." I don't know if that was an intentional Talking Heads lyric reference...but... I DO know...it's looping in my head right NOW..in David Byrne's voice lol
Thanks! (I love the song)
Have a great weekend.
-Jack
Great advice.
Thanks, Kari.
Wishing you a great weekend.
-Jack :)
These programs are just screaming for us to return to microfiche.
A. Hofferkamp...LOL..and honestly...the microfiche era had something we've LOST.
Not the machine. The PROVENANCE. A PHYSICAL trail...NOBODY could dispute.
THAT...what the "detector arms race"...is really all about. Everyone's arguing over a score... because nobody kept a receipt.
Version history is our microfiche. Less romantic. Same damn job.
Have a wonderful weekend, A.
-Jack
You are SO CORRECT.
I maintain tye same silence that occursvwhen an alcoholic tells he does not WANT to go to AA to quit drinking. I am nort rude about it.
At 1st, it was VERY HARD to remain silent.
Dr. Black...that's a good comparison.
The hard part...the one you named...is the real one. Restraint...FEELS like losing...at first.
It isn't; it just doesn't give you that BIG...WHOPPING hit of adrenaline...that, admittedly... can be kind of addicting...that arguing does.
The thing few people mention...is the silence gets easier...once you stop treating it as something you're "giving up." You're not withholding an answer. You're declining a fight... that had no winning move in it.
Sounds like you learned that the long way. It seems most of us do.
Have a great weekend.
-Jack
Never explain. Never defend
Judith...or..explain once...and be done. For the reasons I laid out...there is no "defense" that can satisfy anyone more focused on "spotting AI" than absorbing useful ideas.
So...don't. You won't make them happy...and you'll waste valuable time.
Those who see the value...will grab it. Those who don't...won't. It's how it's always been...and how it will always be.
Enjoy your weekend, Judity Hawkins.
-Jack
I have been writing since I could hold a pencil. More or less continuously. And older than the internet myself, by a lot. AI is a tool, like any tool, (especially with new, sharp, cutting-edged stuff), folks should learn to use it first and well lest it lop off a finger. A little harder with AI, it seems like it went from a “Skynet” fantasy to being dangerously powerful with no user manual and certainly no red triangles plastered all over it. And developing so rapidly the people who created it even seem worried. As you might say, sit with that a minute.
It would never occur to me to use AI for anything serious, let alone compose an entire piece, or just about anything you describe. I really enjoyed your tiny peek behind the curtain, probably one of the things that I appreciate here is your candor and style, it takes a lot to be unique these days, especially in a world now dominated, it seems, with misapprehensions, lies and falsehoods.
I was planning to digitize my journals going back to 1969 probably but never got around to it… “this is boring, who cares what I did in science class on Tuesday.. “ then in 2018 the Camp wildfire came along and more or less permanently ended *that* plan. (Pro tip: don’t postpone or be casual about irreplaceable stuff).
I think me being AI shy is only in this area, I have had some interesting chats with Claude (I picked Anthropic before I even knew they weren’t totally evil, at least not yet) and we’ve had some fun sessions, answering meaningless questions that maybe while meaningless, have stayed with me a long time. A really long time. Many of our chats end up being about music; obscure stuff, my craw of curiosity has always been full- and this remains an area that can be difficult to find answers in the usual places. (Yesterday we got into a good one about the original Apple iPod. I’ll spare y’all. For now.).
Pangram is totally unreliable. If you want the full analysis, check out Sam Illingworth at Slow AI on Substack.
That being said, the only time I have a problem with AI usage is when a Substack author is probably using it but doesn't say so. I've long suspected your writing, Jack, no offense. But I didn't need Pangram to suggest that. I have eyes. Either spell out your AI policy clearly (because you're either using it or not) or don't expect a subscription for me. Like organic produce... I can't taste the difference. The difference is the process and my being comfortable with it either way.
I have directly asked two different Substack authors for their policies and yes, it's because I personally, a human, detected homogenized language in most of their posts that I have come to associate with AI. I didn't accuse, however. I asked. They were both active in their comments sections but neither answered. Not a subscriber now.
First of all, it matters to me because I think using AI is in many ways an insult to the reader. I want the messy, complicated thoughts. That's where the aha! moments live for both the author and the reader. No, I don't need it cleaned up by a machine (I call it homogenized) for me to be able to understand you. A machine doesn't understand nuance. That said, if an author is trying to convey a lot of data with sources, I'm not opposed to assistive AI. It's a lot easier to read a data heavy analysis when it's summarized and it'smore easily parsed.
Some writers I know say they use AI, say how and humanize the work themselves and you can tell. You don't get that sense of AI generated writing, the specific language that's a hallmark. You guys seem to think we can't tell without a tool but when you see it, you start seeing it all over certain pieces. Then add a lack of transparency and I'm done, even if the work seemed valuable. It's not a witch hunt. It's an unwillingness to read AI slop. Because good information doesn't come from a machine. It comes from the human, even when they use the machine to help. But if you're not telling me which pSrts you needed help with, maybe you needed help with all of it and that's not what I'm paying for.
Just fricking say so. That's it. That's the bar. Especially when I'm asking you directly because yeah, fuck Pangram.
Angie...read the ORDER of your own comment.
You told me you've LONG SUSPECTED my writing. You told me it "insults" the reader. You told me you have "eyes."
Then...you asked for my policy...with a subscription held over it as leverage.
That...Angie...was not a "question." That's a verdict...Angie...looking for a confession.
The policy you demanded is IN the article...the one you're commenting under.
Research through ChatGPT and Claude; I pick the sources...make the arguments...write the sentences.
You could have read three paragraphs before deciding what I am.
Here's the part you should consider sitting with...seriously: you spent this entire comment ...explaining that Pangram is UNRELIABLE... because it operates on inference...rather than proof.
Then...you did the SAME thing...with your EYE... and called it "detection."
The word doesn't run on suspicion. Neither does anything ELSE worth building.
Take a refund...email support, done today. This way, you will be very clear about which part you are paying for...because you...won't be paying for any of it. Pretty straightforward...and fairly simple.
Find a writer you don't have to audit. Whatever you're looking for...you'll find it there too...because you brought it with you.
-Jack
I also don't know where to find the standard that you are saying every Substack author should state once. Where? At the bottom of a single article? In the profile? I read where you said you use it for research. Is that your standard? If so, it gets a pass from me because you stated it clearly. The only reason Ive ever wondered is the short punchy one or two sentences framework you use. Except that I've seen lots of writers who use that style organically. So I never presumed, never needed Pangram. Just.. wondered. And left it at that. I do appreciate the clarity, as I said in my rant above.
Read the reply I just sent. You'll find you already found it...at least twice.