From 703b0e43d19215fcabeb809e1e5b30bd7bf5aed6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Eisinger Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:31:09 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] AI isn't useless --- content/journal/dispatch-15-may-2024/index.md | 4 + .../www-citationneeded-news-loassa.txt | 623 ++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 627 insertions(+) create mode 100644 static/archive/www-citationneeded-news-loassa.txt diff --git a/content/journal/dispatch-15-may-2024/index.md b/content/journal/dispatch-15-may-2024/index.md index 5e0ec75..fc71d8d 100644 --- a/content/journal/dispatch-15-may-2024/index.md +++ b/content/journal/dispatch-15-may-2024/index.md @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ references: url: https://cliophate.wtf/posts/boox-palma-review date: 2024-04-18T14:01:57Z file: cliophate-wtf-quluwp.txt +- title: "AI isn't useless. But is it worth it?" + url: https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/ + date: 2024-04-18T16:30:46Z + file: www-citationneeded-news-loassa.txt --- Some thoughts here... diff --git a/static/archive/www-citationneeded-news-loassa.txt b/static/archive/www-citationneeded-news-loassa.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..34f6585 --- /dev/null +++ b/static/archive/www-citationneeded-news-loassa.txt @@ -0,0 +1,623 @@ +[1] [citation needed] +a newsletter by Molly White + + • [4]Archive + • [5]Recap issues + • [6]Podcast feed + • [7]About + • [8]RSS + • [9]Tip jar + • [10]Privacy policy + +[12]Sign in [13]Subscribe + +Sidenotes + +[15][ ] Show footnotes +[16][ ] Show references +[17]( ) [18]( ) [19]( ) +[20]( ) [21]( ) [22]( ) +[23]Newsletter + +AI isn't useless. But is it worth it? + +AI can be kind of useful, but I'm not sure that a "kind of useful" tool +justifies the harm. + +[24] Molly White + +[25]Molly White + +Apr 17, 2024 — 15 min read +AI isn't useless. But is it worth it? +audio-thumbnail +AI isn't useless. But is it worth it? +0:00 +/1311.164082 +[28][0 ]1×[32][100 ] +Listen to a voiceover of this post, [33]download the recording for later, or +[34]subscribe to the feed in your podcast app. + +As someone known for my criticism of the previous deeply flawed technology to +become the subject of the tech world's overinflated aspirations, I have had +people express surprise when I've remarked that generative artificial +intelligence tools^[35]a can be useful. In fact, I was a little surprised +myself. + +But there is a yawning gap between "AI tools can be handy for some things" and +the kinds of stories AI companies are telling (and the media is uncritically +reprinting). And when it comes to the massively harmful ways in which large +language models (LLMs) are being developed and trained, the feeble argument +that "well, they can sometimes be handy..." doesn't offer much of a +justification. + +Some are surprised when they discover I don't think blockchains are useless, +either. Like so many technologies, blockchains are designed to prioritize a few +specific characteristics (coordination among parties who don't trust one +another, censorship-resistance, etc.) at the expense of many others (speed, +cost, etc.). And as they became trendy, people often used them for purposes +where their characteristics weren't necessary — or were sometimes even unwanted +— and so they got all of the flaws with none of the benefits. The thing with +blockchains is that the things they are suited for are not things I personally +find to be terribly desirable, such as the massive casinos that have emerged +around gambling on token prices, or financial transactions that cannot be +reversed. + +When I boil it down, I find my feelings about AI are actually pretty similar to +my feelings about blockchains: they do a poor job of much of what people try to +do with them, they can't do the things their creators claim they one day might, +and many of the things they are well suited to do may not be altogether that +beneficial. And while I do think that AI tools are more broadly useful than +blockchains, they also come with similarly monstrous costs. + +[36]Subscribe + +I've been slow to get around to writing about artificial intelligence in any +depth, mostly because I've been trying to take the time to interrogate my own +knee-jerk response to a clearly overhyped technology. After spending so much +time writing about a niche that's practically all hype with little practical +functionality, it's all too easy to look at such a frothy mania around a +different type of technology and assume it's all the same. + +In the earliest months of the LLM mania, my ethical concerns about the tools +made me hesitant to try them at all. When my early tests were met with mediocre +to outright unhelpful results, I'll admit I was quick to internally dismiss the +technology as more or less useless. It takes time to experiment with these +models and learn how to prompt them to produce useful outputs,^[37]b and I just +didn't have that time then.^[38]c But as the hype around AI has grown, and with +it my desire to understand the space in more depth, I wanted to really +understand what these tools can do, to develop as strong an understanding as +possible of their potential capabilities as well as their limitations and +tradeoffs, to ensure my opinions are well-formed. + +I, like many others who have experimented with or adopted these products, have +found that these tools actually can be pretty useful for some tasks. Though AI +companies are prone to making overblown promises that the tools will shortly be +able to replace your content writing team or generate feature-length films or +develop a video game from scratch, the reality is far more mundane: they are +handy in the same way that it might occasionally be useful to delegate some +tasks to an inexperienced and sometimes sloppy intern. + +Still, I do think acknowledging the usefulness is important, while also holding +companies to account for their false or impossible promises, abusive labor +practices, and myriad other issues. When critics dismiss AI outright, I think +in many cases this weakens the criticism, as readers who have used and +benefited from AI tools think "wait, that's not been my experience at all". + +Use cases + +I've found AI tools to be useful to my writing, though not for the actual +writing bit. When I'm writing, I often find myself with a word on the "tip of +my tongue" (so to speak), and I've had more success with ChatGPT than with +Google for these circumstances — although I can usually find the word with +Google if I try hard enough. + +[Screenshot-2024-04-16-at-4]User: What's a word for something that will not +affect the final outcome Assistant: Inconsequential + +Like many people, I also find it challenging to proofread my own writing, and I +sometimes miss typos or weird grammar accidentally left in from changing a +sentence halfway through. + +USER Please proofread the following text and point out any spelling or grammar +problems, typos, and other such issues. Do not change the tone of the writing +or try to adjust the reading level. Do not repeat the entire corrected text +back to me, simply identify with brief quotes of the flawed text where changes +need to be made. Bitcoiners are all aflutter as the halving date +approaches in about a week. This is very exciting for them, because the past +three halvings look like they've precipitated major price increases +(particularly if you use a log scale, which bitcoiners love). Bitcoin prices in +linear scale (blue) and log scale (black) since 2010, with halvings marked by +the red lines (chart via Bitbo) The "halving" is the moment when bitcoin block +rewards that is, the amount of bitcoin issued as a reward to the miner for +successfully mining a block are reduced by half. This is a strategy to ensure +the total supply of bitcoin gradually tapers... RESPONSE Here are the spelling, +grammar, and typo issues I found in the text: 1. "kind of the thought process" +should be "kind of thought process" 2. "beliefs of guaranteed double-your-money +returns" should be "belief of guaranteed double-your-money returns" 3. "2024" +is used instead of "2023" in several places, likely typos: • "Notice of appeal +filed on April 11, 2024." • "Letter motion filed on April 8, 2024." • "Tweet by +Inner City Press, April 9, 2024." • "Tweet by Inner City Press, April 12, +2024." • "Order filed on April 8, 2024." 4. "Committee on Committee on Banking" +should be "Committee on Banking" 5. "consider proposals" should be "considers +proposals" 6. "BitBoy" Armstrong's name is inconsistently capitalized as +"Bitboy" in one instance 7. "coinflips" should be "coin flips" 8. There is an +inconsistency in the number of Web3 is Going Just Great entries between April 1 +and April 12. The text states "11 entries" but only 7 are listed.Proofreading a +newsletter post with Anthropic's Claude model + +LLMs are pretty decent at proofreading, and although they sometimes spit out a +few false positives, this example from proofreading my most recent recap issue +shows where it caught several mistakes (points 1, 2, 4, and 8; point 5 was also +a genuine error, but it was within a quote). + +However, I don't think I need generative AI to do this, either. There are a lot +of proofreading tools^[39]d that work quite well, and, helpfully, don't invent +errors that weren't in the original text (as I've found the ChatGPT models are +particularly wont to do). + +Coding has been the far more compelling use case for me. Copilot, Github's AI +coding assistant, integrates directly into VSCode and other [40]IDEs. I've also +played with using the more general models, like ChatGPT, for coding tasks. They +are certainly flawed — Copilot has an annoying habit of "hallucinating" +(fabricating) imports instead of deferring to VSCode's perfectly good non-AI +auto-import, for example — but in other cases they are genuinely helpful. + +I've found these tools to be particularly good at simple tasks that would +normally pull me out of my workflow to consult documentation or StackOverflow, +like generating finicky CSS selectors or helping me craft database aggregation +operations. On at least one occasion, they've pointed me towards useful +functionality I never knew about and wouldn't even think to look up. They're +also great at saving you some typing by spitting out the kind of boilerplate-y +code you have to write for things like new unit tests. + +The tools can also do the kind of simple, repetitive tasks I'd previously write +a quick script to do for me — or they can generate that quick script. For +example, here's me asking ChatGPT to write a quick Python script to turn my +blogroll OPML file into the JSON file I wanted while I was adding a [41] +blogroll page to my website: + +Suggest some python code to turn an OPML file like this into a JSON file with +fields for "text", "xmlUrl", and "htmlUrl": +Feeds of molly.white5 tagged as Blogroll from Inoreader [https:// +www.inoreader.com] + +After changing the feeds.opml file path to the location of the file on my +computer, the code it suggested worked without any modification: + +ASSISTANT python import xml.etree.Element Tree as ET import json tree = +ET.parse('feeds.opml') root = tree.getroot() feeds = for outline in +root.findall('.//outline'): feed = { 'text': outline.attrib.get('text'), +'xmlUrl': outline.attrib.get('xmlUrl"), 'htmlUrl': outline.attrib.get +('htmlUrl') } feeds.append(feed) json_data = json.dumps(feeds, indent=4) with +open('feeds.json', 'w') as f: f.write(json_data) This code will read the OPML +file 'feeds.opml', extract the 'text', 'xmlUrl', and 'htmlUrl' attributes from +each outline element, and save the data into a JSON file 'feeds.json' with +proper indentation. + +Besides my own experimentation, others are using these tools in ways that are +really hard to argue aren't useful. Someone I know in real life has told me +about creating a custom model based on their own emails, which they then query +as needed, or use to create some fairly boilerplate documents they previously +had to spend hours on. Open source developer Simon Willison has been +documenting his own AI coding experiments on his blog, and has described how +LLMs have [42]made him more ambitious with his projects and more likely to +embark on what he calls "[43]sidequests".^[44]e Sumana Harihareswara [45]uses +OpenAI's speech recognition tools to create subtitles for her videos and +recorded talks, or to "mine" them for material she can later reuse. Elsewhere +on the internet, those who speak English as a second language have spoken of +LLMs' usefulness in revising their professional communications. Others use it +to summarize meeting notes. Some use it as a starting point for documentation. + +Reality check + +Despite some unarguably useful features, the limitations of these tools make +themselves readily apparent. + +When it comes to coding, while it can make for a handy assistant to an +experienced developer, it can't replace an experienced developer. Microsoft's +[46]Super Bowl commercial, which shows a person prompting Copilot to "Write +code for my 3D open world game", is pure fantasy. + +molly Write code for my 3D open world game GitHub Copilot Used 1 reference > +Sorry, but writing code for a 3D open world game is a complex task that +requires a lot of time and effort. It's not something that can be done in a +single response. However, I can help you get started by creating a basic +structure for a game using a game development framework like Unity or Unreal +Engine. Here's a simple example of a Unity script in C# that moves a game +object: using System.Collections; using System.Collections.Generic; using +UnityEngine; public class PlayerMovement: MonoBehaviour { public float speed = +10.0f; void Update() { float moveHorizontal = Input.GetAxis ("Horizontal"); +float moveVertical = Input.GetAxis ("Vertical"); Vector3 movement = new Vector3 +(moveHorizontal, 0.0f, moveVertical); transform.position = transform.position + +movement * speed * Time.de } } This script should be attached to the player +object. It takes input from the keyboard and moves the player object +accordingly. The speed variable can be adjusted to control how fast the player +moves. + +And in my experience, it sometimes gets in the way more than it helps, as when +I experimented with it while working on a [47]Chrome extension I was writing +recently and ultimately had to turn it off. It constantly suggested plausible +but completely non-functional code, scaffolded the project in an outdated +format, and autogenerated CSS classes that looked like they could be Bootstrap +classes, but weren't. It's good at short functions and common boilerplate, but +it's not going to architect a project for you, and, as with writing, it's not +going to "think" of novel ideas. I like it for getting annoying, repetitive +tasks out of my way; I don't worry it's going to take my job. + +Arguably the most widely-described use case for generative AI is writing. +Indeed, as media companies lay off journalists in droves, [48]some [49]outlets +are replacing their work with shoddy, AI-generated approximations. Freelance +writers are reporting challenges in finding work as their former clients decide +that ChatGPT can do a good enough job. But what these companies and clients +fail to recognize is that ChatGPT does not write, it generates text, and anyone +who's spotted obviously LLM-generated content in the wild immediately knows the +difference. + +You've gotten this far into my article, so you're recently familiar with a +couple dozen paragraphs of purely human writing. Contrast that with LLMs' +attempts, from prompts with varying degrees of detail, with my very best +efforts put into trying to get it to sound halfway normal: + +A table with a range of LLM prompts provided to three models: ChatGPT, Claude, +and Gemini([50]spreadsheet) + +Yikes. I particularly like how, when I ask them to try to sound like me, or to +at least sound less like a chatbot, they adopt a sort of "cool teacher" +persona, as if they're sitting backwards on a chair to have a heart-to-heart. +Back when I used to wait tables, the other waitresses and I would joke to each +other about our "waitress voice", which were the personas we all subconsciously +seemed to slip into when talking to customers. They varied somewhat, but they +were all uniformly saccharine, with slightly higher-pitched voices, and with +the general demeanor as though you were talking to someone you didn't think was +very bright. Every LLM's writing "voice" reminds me of that. + +Even if the telltale tone is surmountable, LLMs are good at generating text but +not at generating novel ideas. This is, of course, an inherent feature of +technology that's designed to generate plausible mathematical approximations of +what you've asked it for based on its large corpus of training data; it doesn't +think, and so the best you're ever going to get from it is some mashup of other +peoples' thinking.^[51]f + +LLM-generated text is good enough for some use cases, which I'll return to in a +moment. But I think most people, myself certainly included, would be mortified +to replace any of our writing with this kind of stuff.^[52]g + +Furthermore, LLMs' "hallucination" problem means that everything it does must +be carefully combed over for errors, which can sometimes be hard to spot. +Because of this, while it's handy for proofreading newsletters or helping me +quickly add a fun feature to my website, I wouldn't trust LLMs to do anything +of real import. And the tendency for people to put too much trust into these +tools^[53]h is among their most serious problems: no amount of warning labels +and disclaimers seem to be sufficient to stop people from trying to use them to +provide legal advice or sell AI "therapy" services. + +Finally, advertisements that LLMs might someday generate feature-length films +or replace artists seem neither feasible nor desirable. AI-generated images +tend to suffer from a similar bland "tone" as its writing, and their +proliferation only makes me desire real human artwork more. With generated +video, they inevitably trend towards the uncanny, and the technology's inherent +limitations — as a tool that is probabilistically generating "likely" images +rather than ones based on some kind of understanding — seem unlikely to ever +overcome that. And the idea that we all should be striving to "replace artists" +— or any kind of labor — is deeply concerning, and I think incredibly +illustrative of the true desires of these companies: to increase corporate +profits at any cost. + +When LLMs are good enough + +As I mentioned before, there are some circumstances in which LLMs are good +enough. There are some types of writing where LLMs are already being widely +used: for example, by businesspeople who use them to generate meeting notes, +fluff up their outgoing emails or summarize their incoming ones, or spit out +lengthy, largely identical reports that they're required to write regularly. + +You can also spot LLMs in all sorts of places on the internet, where they're +being used to try to boost websites' search engine rankings. That weird, bubbly +GPT voice is well suited to marketing copy and social media posts, too. Any +place on the web that incentivizes high-volume, low effort text is being +inundated by generated text, like e-book stores, online marketplaces, and +practically any review or comment section. + +But I find one common thread among the things AI tools are particularly suited +to doing: do we even want to be doing these things? If all you want out of a +meeting is the AI-generated summary, maybe that meeting could've been an email. +If you're using AI to write your emails, and your recipient is using AI to read +them, could you maybe cut out the whole thing entirely? If mediocre, +auto-generated reports are passing muster, is anyone actually reading them? Or +is it just middle-management busywork? + +As for the AI [54]enshittification of the internet, we all seem to agree +already that we don't want this, and yet here it is. No one wants to open up +Etsy to look for a thoughtful birthday gift, only to give up after scrolling +through pages of low-quality print-on-demand items or resold Aliexpress items +that have flooded the site. + +[Screenshot-2024-04-13-at-5] +[Screenshot-2024-04-13-at-5] + +Your AI model is showing + +No one wants to Google search a question only to end up on several pages of +keyword-spam vomit before finding an authoritative answer. + +But the incentives at play on these platforms, mean that AI junk is inevitable. +In fact, the LLMs may be new, but the behavior is not; just like [55]keyword +stuffing and [56]content farms and the myriad ways people used software to +generate reams upon reams of low-quality text before ChatGPT ever came on the +scene, if the incentive is there, the behavior will follow. If the internet's +enshittification feels worse post-ChatGPT, it's because of the quantity and +speed at which this junk is being produced, not because the junk is new. + +Costs and benefits + +Throughout all this exploration and experimentation I've felt a lingering +guilt, and a question: is this even worth it? And is it ethical for me to be +using these tools, even just to learn more about them in hopes of later +criticizing them more effectively? + +The costs of these AI models are huge, and not just in terms of the billions of +dollars of VC funds they're burning through at incredible speed. These models +are well known to require far more computing power (and thus electricity and +water) than a traditional web search or spellcheck. Although AI company +datacenters are not intentionally wasting electricity in the same way that +bitcoin miners perform millions of useless computations, I'm also not sure that +generating a picture of a person with twelve fingers on each hand or text that +reads as though written by an endlessly smiling children's television star +who's being held hostage is altogether that much more useful than a bitcoin. + +There's a huge human cost as well. Artificial intelligence relies heavily upon +"[57]ghost labor": work that appears to be performed by a computer, but is +actually delegated to often terribly underpaid contractors, working in horrible +conditions, with few labor protections and no benefits. There is a huge amount +of work that goes into compiling and labeling data to feed into these models, +and each new model depends on [58]ever-greater amounts of said data — training +data which is well known to be scraped from just about any possible source, +regardless of copyright or consent. And some of these workers suffer serious +psychological harm as a result of exposure to deeply traumatizing material in +the course of sanitizing datasets or training models to perform content +moderation tasks. + +Then there's the question of opportunity cost to those who are increasingly +being edged out of jobs by LLMs,^[59]i despite the fact that AI often can't +capably perform the work they were doing. Should I really be using AI tools to +proofread my newsletters when I could otherwise pay a real person to do that +proofreading? Even if I never intended to hire such a person? + +Finally, there's the issue of how these tools are being used, and the lack of +effort from their creators to limit their abuse. We're seeing them used to +generate disinformation via increasingly convincing [60]deepfaked images, +audio, or video, and the [61]reckless use of them by previously reputable news +outlets and others who publish unedited AI content is also contributing to +misinformation. Even where AI isn't being directly used, it's degrading trust +so badly that people have to question whether the content they're seeing is +generated, or whether the "person" they're interacting with online might just +be ChatGPT. Generative AI is being used to [62]harass and [63]sexually abuse. +Other AI models are enabling [64]increased surveillance in the workplace and +for "security" purposes — where their well-known biases are worsening +discrimination by police who are wooed by promises of "predictive policing". +The [65]list goes on. + +━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ + +I'm glad that I took the time to experiment with AI tools, both because I +understand them better and because I have found them to be useful in my +day-to-day life. But even as someone who has used them and found them helpful, +it's remarkable to see the gap between what they can do and what their +promoters promise they will someday be able to do. The benefits, though extant, +seem to pale in comparison to the costs. + +But the reality is that you can't build a hundred-billion-dollar industry +around a technology that's kind of useful, mostly in mundane ways, and that +boasts perhaps small increases in productivity if and only if the people who +use it fully understand its limitations. And you certainly can't justify the +kind of exploitation, extraction, and environmental cost that the industry has +been mostly getting away with, in part because people have believed their lofty +promises of someday changing the world. + +I would love to live in a world where the technology industry widely valued +making incrementally useful tools to improve peoples' lives, and were honest +about what those tools could do, while also carefully weighing the technology's +costs. But that's not the world we live in. Instead, we need to push back +against endless tech manias and overhyped narratives, and oppose the +"innovation at any cost" mindset that has infected the tech sector. + +Footnotes + + 1. When I refer to "AI" in this piece, I'm mostly referring to the much + narrower field of [66]generative artificial intelligence and [67]large + language models (LLMs), which is what people generally mean these days when + they say "AI". [68]↩ + + 2. While much fun has been made of those describing themselves as "prompt + engineers", I have to say I kind of get it. It takes some experience to be + able to open up a ChatGPT window or other LLM interface and actually + provide instructions that will produce useful output. I've heard this + compared to "google-fu" in the early days of Google, when the search engine + was much worse at interpreting natural language queries, and I think that's + rather apt. [69]↩ + + 3. ChatGPT was publicly released in November 2022, right as the cryptocurrency + industry was in peak meltdown. [70]↩ + + 4. Many of which are built with various other kinds of machine learning or + artificial intelligence, if not necessarily generative AI. [71]↩ + + 5. As it happens, he has also [72]written about the "AI isn't useful" + criticism. [73]↩ + + 6. Some AI boosters will argue that most or all original thought is also + merely a mashup of other peoples' thoughts, which I think is a rather + insulting minimization of human ingenuity. [74]↩ + + 7. Nor do I want to, by the way. I performed these tests for the purposes of + illustration, but I neither intend nor want to start using these tools to + replace my writing. I'm here to write, and you're here to read my writing, + and that's how it will remain. See my [75]about page. [76]↩ + + 8. Something that is absolutely encouraged by the tools' creators, who give + them chat-like interfaces, animations suggesting that the tool is "typing" + messages back to you, and a confident writing style that encourages people + to envision the software as another thinking human being. [77]↩ + + 9. Or, more accurately, by managers and executives who believe the marketing + hype out of AI companies that proclaim that their tools can replace + workers, without seeming to understand at all what those workers do. [78]↩ + +Loved this post? Consider [79]signing up for a pay-what-you-want subscription +or [80]leaving a tip to support Molly White's work, which is entirely funded by +readers like you. + +Read more + +[81] A hand holds a gold "Bitcoin" coin that has been cut in half + +Issue 55 – Halving a bad time + +The bitcoin "halving" looms, and that may not be as good news as coiners hope. +Also, Terra committed fraud and Uniswap got a Wells notice. + +Apr 13, 2024 +[82] A collage of a Bored Ape, a photo of Ryder Ripps, and the BAYC logo + +"The Monkey Fraud": An interview with Ryder Ripps + +An interview with Ryder Ripps, a defendant in the Yuga Labs v. Ripps case about +Bored Ape Yacht Club trademark infringement and racism. + +Apr 4, 2024 +[83] A small fake critter with orange bristles, grey-blue skin, and large black +eyes, with its mouth agape + +Issue 54 – Cases continue + +Crypto-related litigation is in full swing, as the Terra civil fraud trial has +kicked off and two other cases against crypto companies have survived motions +to dismiss. + +Apr 2, 2024 +[84] B&W photo of Sam Bankman-Fried overlaid on a yellow-tinted photo of the +NYC courthouse with scrap of sentencing transcript + +25 years for Sam Bankman-Fried + +"The judgment has to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime, and this +was a very serious crime." + +Mar 28, 2024 + +Citation Needed features critical coverage of the cryptocurrency industry and +of issues in the broader technology world. + +It is independently published by Molly White, and entirely supported by readers +like you. + +[85]Subscribe + + • [86]Archive + • [87]Recap issues + • [88]Podcast feed + • [89]About + • [90]RSS + • [91]Tip jar + • [92]Privacy policy + + • [93]Twitter + • [94]Mastodon + • [95]Bluesky + • [96]YouTube + • [97]TikTok + • [98]Etc. + +© 2024 Molly White. + +References: + +[1] https://www.citationneeded.news/ +[4] https://www.citationneeded.news/page/2/ +[5] https://www.citationneeded.news/tag/weekly-recaps/ +[6] https://www.citationneeded.news/podcast/ +[7] https://www.citationneeded.news/about/ +[8] https://www.citationneeded.news/rss/ +[9] https://donate.stripe.com/14k8AseTNaqLaZy7ss +[10] https://www.citationneeded.news/privacy/ +[12] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#/portal/signin +[13] https://www.citationneeded.news/signup +[23] https://www.citationneeded.news/tag/newsletter/ +[24] https://www.citationneeded.news/author/molly/ +[25] https://www.citationneeded.news/author/molly/ +[33] https://www.citationneeded.news/content/media/2024/04/2024-04-16-AI-isnt-useless-voiceover.mp3 +[34] https://www.citationneeded.news/podcast/ +[35] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-1 +[36] https://www.citationneeded.news/signup +[37] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-2 +[38] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-3 +[39] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-4 +[40] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_development_environment +[41] https://www.mollywhite.net/blogroll +[42] https://simonwillison.net/2023/Mar/27/ai-enhanced-development/ +[43] https://simonwillison.net/2024/Mar/22/claude-and-chatgpt-case-study/#not-notable +[44] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-5 +[45] https://www.harihareswara.net/posts/2022/speech-to-text-with-whisper-how-i-use-it-why/ +[46] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaCVSUbYpVc +[47] https://github.com/molly/courtlistener-download +[48] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/sports-illustrated-found-publishing-ai-generated-stories-photos-and-authors +[49] https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/01/17/cnet-ai-articles-journalism-corrections/ +[50] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSYCmj-hH51Yz8uc0W55lYYvrCD3464Jb2uULI9_aqsZ6ZGsLl-5IXYv1HkNiNagLFyYgtMubGQx-Ns/pubhtml +[51] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-6 +[52] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-7 +[53] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-8 +[54] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification +[55] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyword_stuffing +[56] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_farm +[57] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_work +[58] https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-training-data-synthetic-openai-anthropic-9230f8d8 +[59] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-9 +[60] https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-elections-disinformation-chatgpt-bc283e7426402f0b4baa7df280a4c3fd +[61] https://www.newsguardtech.com/special-reports/ai-tracking-center/ +[62] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/08/technology/ai-4chan-online-harassment.html +[63] https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/01/1084164/deepfake-porn-scandal-pushing-us-lawmakers/ +[64] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/07/artificial-intelligence-surveillance-workers +[65] https://incidentdatabase.ai/ +[66] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_artificial_intelligence +[67] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model +[68] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-anchor-1 +[69] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-anchor-2 +[70] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-anchor-3 +[71] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-anchor-4 +[72] https://simonwillison.net/2024/Mar/22/claude-and-chatgpt-case-study/#llms-are-useful +[73] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-anchor-5 +[74] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-anchor-6 +[75] https://www.citationneeded.news/about/ +[76] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-anchor-7 +[77] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-anchor-8 +[78] https://www.citationneeded.news/ai-isnt-useless/#footnote-anchor-9 +[79] https://www.citationneeded.news/signup +[80] https://donate.stripe.com/14k8AseTNaqLaZy7ss +[81] https://www.citationneeded.news/issue-55/ +[82] https://www.citationneeded.news/yuga-labs-ryder-ripps-interview/ +[83] https://www.citationneeded.news/issue-54/ +[84] https://www.citationneeded.news/sam-bankman-fried-sentenced/ +[85] https://www.citationneeded.news/signup +[86] https://www.citationneeded.news/page/2/ +[87] https://www.citationneeded.news/tag/weekly-recaps/ +[88] https://www.citationneeded.news/podcast/ +[89] https://www.citationneeded.news/about/ +[90] https://www.citationneeded.news/rss/ +[91] https://donate.stripe.com/14k8AseTNaqLaZy7ss +[92] https://www.citationneeded.news/privacy/ +[93] https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF/ +[94] https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff +[95] https://bsky.app/profile/molly.wiki +[96] https://www.youtube.com/@molly0xfff +[97] https://www.tiktok.com/@molly0xfff +[98] https://www.mollywhite.net/