You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: AI is stupid: Humans Judgment Matters
i think what you are proposing is rational. curation as a human endeavor is a time consuming task, with little payback. and while I don't like the overuse of bots, at least they are free of judgement. why is this a good thing? because i feel human judgement is biased. we tend to value entertainment at any level higher than intellectual thought. this has to do with our learned cultural emphasis and reliance on social media. our ideas about quality have become debased because our attention spans can no longer linger for a five minute article unless there is an accompanying video with graphics. good writing is taken for granted. so if there is no best judge of what quality is, we might as well delegate proof of input to a bot.
Bots are free of judgement: but quality is 100% about judgement. I think that bots can help support humans to make those judgement calls, but cannot replace them. I guess, we have to find/build the community that shares our idea on what quality is and then work within that. Keep on having the conversations.
If you want long-form content then it's easy enough to build a bot that filters out anything too short - and then you can exercise judgement over what the bot presents to you. Whatever your ideas on quality we can give broad parameters to bots but still have to make human judgements.
Proof of input is the death of steem because bots can input faster than humans.
Often, though, a skilled writer can convey more in fewer words than an unskilled writer. And I've seen long posts on Steemit that offer nothing valuable, so I hope length doesn't become a determining factor. And this comment probably only serves to prove your point that, ultimately, human decision-making is needed.
There's also the "frequency" of how writers use words. Bots can only estimate what should be said to an extinct, but it takes an intellect with an actual human brain, to precisely layout what needs to be said rather than what's irrelevant.
I wrote a long piece about writing / structuring concepts, it was fun, it was brutal putting it together, but I believe it gives the writer value and concept ideas they maybe able to apply to their writing style.
It basically comes down to the reader, what he or she decides to do with the acquired info.
Either way.. (it's powerful s--t!!) LOL.
https://steemit.com/steem/@jaye-irons/steemit-project-3rd-4th-and-5th-degree-fact-level-search-and-apply-concepts-jaye-s-way
That was the article I created, which talked about various degree levels when searching for info one wants to apply to an eBook creation, story-telling analysis, or a simple how to do write up.
And guess what, it NEVER garnered a dime. But the information there is powerful, and very intriguing..
False negatives are always going to be a problem when we use metrics that indicate but do not directly measure something. But, in the case of AI Assistants that control visibility for a human, a false negative will not be seen while a false positive will be. It's a tricky balance to get right - if the parameters are too coarse then there'll be too many false positives: too tight and false negatives increase.
i think that conversation on what constitutes quality needs to happen. its one of the many conversations that are being left out of school, like the one of critical thinking and writing, and how to divorce capitalism from out thought processes.
Exactly! We, the community members, need to keep talking about quality and what that means for us. The rewards system might be AnCap in its operation but it is not the only measure of value and influence on Steem. Money/STEEM is never meant to be a measure of all value ever and so our conversations really do matter. They inform the creators how their creations will be valued.
Though, I would say that any discussion on quality is not separable from a discussion on culture and that culture's embedded values.
I tend to swing towards live-and-let-live pluralism. And this means I support different communities having their own mutually incompatible versions of quality provided they don't impose their hegemonies on anybody else. Cyberspace has infinite room for them all.