How Does AI Affect Your Online Shopping?

[Umbran]

... but a lot of the hate comes across to me as insincere.

Yeah, one of the best ways to dismiss the concerns of others is to decide they are insincere.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, that makes sense. Maybe if we had more positive news stories about how it has helped astrophysics/astronomy by analysing the vast amounts of data to find more phenomena in space, or about how it is used to help in medicine we'd have people with a more balanced view of it.

So, with respect, you are missing a major point here.

If genAI was mostly being used to assist highly specialized practitioners in highly specialized fields, nobody would give two hoots. My own graduate research into what would eventually be called "generative AI" was of that form, but for particle accelerators.

Those are not the uses that concern people. Those are not the uses that the tech community trying to sell it are targeting!

 

[DMinTraining]

I am uninterested in any sort of ttrpg product that uses AI art, text, or other output as a part of its final product. I don't care if others use it in their games as that is their prerogative, but I will not be using any of it in the games I run for my table.

Those individuals and groups that spend the time and energy to craft a tabletop products using their own creative ideas and skills are worthy of respect. I see no reason to replace or supplement the material in my games with AI slop that was built using an amalgam of work from other creatives without recognizing or paying any of them.

 

[cbwjm]

Yeah, one of the best ways to dismiss the concerns of others is to decide they are insincere.

If that's how it comes across then that's how it comes across. Like when someone uses the term AI slop, it comes across to me as them parroting the anti-AI buzzwords because they feel like they shouldn't like AI. if they instead say something like "I have concerns over AI, and here's why..." I'm much more likely to listen; but yeah, the AI slop crowd will continue to come across to me as insincere.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It’s a debatable use. There’s been some very high profile errors/problems in documents released by a certain massive government recently which were almost certainly caused by running the docs through a LLM to accomplish certain editing tasks. Human editors/proofreaders can make errors plenty of course, but they have context awareness and inference across large documents even the best current models don’t (and some of the latest releases have regressed in certain areas with large context handling).

This is why you look the document over again after the LLM has had its way with it. Nothing requires it to be the absolute last stage in the editing process, but it can cut out a lot of the middle.

 

[mamba]

As someone in statistics/machine learning, one of the things that annoys me about this is how "AI" has become synonymous with "a massive data center using LLM trained on everything online without regard to copyright". I agree that there is a big difference between that and a custom deep neutral net designed for astronomy or tumor scanning, or an artist who trained something on their own works.

I kind of wonder how that affects the poll results (and what they reflect about consumers).

given that this is about AI content in RPG products, I would expect most of that to come from LLMs rather than something trained on tumor scanning, and the results reflect that

 

[Egarb]

I want nothing to do with AI/LLM in the TTRPG sphere at al. And anyone using it is blacklisted for any further purchases unless they choose to not touch AI/LLM again.

I dont care if its more "efficient". Its damaging to the environment, to society and to the mind and the cognetive ability of the users.

 

[Morrus]

If that's how it comes across then that's how it comes across. Like when someone uses the term AI slop, it comes across to me as them parroting the anti-AI buzzwords because they feel like they shouldn't like AI. if they instead say something like "I have concerns over AI, and here's why..." I'm much more likely to listen; but yeah, the AI slop crowd will continue to come across to me as insincere.

It's shorthand, rather than having to type all that out over and over again. Forcing people to re-explain their premise every time they speak is a great way to silence people. I'm sure you know what the general concerns over AI are; you don't need them reiterated in every post.

 

[Umbran]

if they instead say something like "I have concerns over AI, and here's why..." I'm much more likely to listen; but yeah, the AI slop crowd will continue to come across to me as insincere.

I think you are not giving proper consideration of the page after page after page of discussion genAI has had on these boards.

I mean, you get to think what you want. Nobody can stop you. But the "I have concerns, and here's why..." has been covered already, numerous times. At this point, you are discarding them for choosing to not repeat themselves.

 

[Cadence]

I am kind of curious about the two respondents who would "buy the product purely on principle", but are not now more likely to buy it (zero respondents) nor view it as being "more valuable" (zero respondents).

Is it the wording of "I will buy the product purely on principle" being read in a way that could apply to every product they bought (they always apply their principles) reading it as definitely buying it because using AI is one of their principles? And now I'm wondering how most people read it, because that does seem a bit awkward to me.