Here's a thought experiment.

[cavanholi@kind.social]

@sjn heck, if the made with AI product is cheaper, I'm still getting the other one.

just like I get books from bookstore.org even when they are more expensive than amazon's

[cavanholi@kind.social]

@gisgeek @sjn mildly agree with this. though humans can make poor products, llm cannot make good ones.
so it is a choice of either 'mediocre to rubbish' from AI, or, 'good to mediocre to rubbish' from a human.

and lets not forget at the end of the day, it is a human pushing the product forward, either human or AI made, and it is a human profitting from it.

but if it is AI made, then the one profitting does not care about the wasted resourcers and possible misuse of intellectual property (...)

[cavanholi@kind.social]

@gisgeek @sjn (...) possible misuse of intellectual property.
I will not help said human profit if it is up to me.

in the end, it is not as much as 'made with AI' marks it as poor.
it is that it marks the product as Not good

[noisecolor@toot.community]

@sjn
That's a silly and pointless poll. Of course it's not the same quality. It's like asking if people think a 5k€ suit worked on by a tailor for two weeks is the same, better or worse quality than a 50€ from HM .
What do you think?

Point of automatization is producing products at speed and price for the quality that is good enough. Not quality alone.

[lapizistik@social.tchncs.de]

@sjn

This is multi-dimensional. Quality itself is not one-dimensional and “higher” quality is not the only reason to choose what to buy.

Than AI is much more than using generative LLMs. For example cancer detection with machine learning based image evaluation has very high success rates, so I would very much follow its advise (if used by a domain expert). And even generative AI used by an expert as a tool can be great. On the other hand I may want to pay an artist but not an AI company for some image of same “quality”.

And then there is: if an AI can produce it its value will not increase in time while it is from a famous artist it may (see →Benjamin, aura).

There is all the ethical aspects. And…

And this only got me started.

[michaelharley@infosec.exchange]

@sjn gosh I think there's not nearly enough nuance here and everybody is going to assume the absolute worst or best scenario in their head.

Did a developer, using Claude in their IDE, carefully guide it to build something, with attention to detail and corrections?

Or are we just talking about AI slop, where someone who doesn't really know what they're doing told Claude to build something and whatever was spit out is what they got and they had not clue or idea about development?

I think AI can make good devs better. I think lazy devs will still make shit. IMO

[muhanga@mastodon.social]

@sjn which one would I buy?
The quality of the product do not equate to using AI or not using it.
But using AI equate to labor exploitation on the bigger scale. And quite probably signal about other unethical practices of the people in the management (or other) chains of the product.
So given the choice I would spend my money on the one without the sticker.

[trianderror@kanoa.de]

@sjn
“When AI is mentioned, it tends to lower emotional trust, which in turn decreases purchase intentions,” he said. [...]
“We tested the effect across eight different product and service categories, and the results were all the same: it’s a disadvantage to include those kinds of terms in the product descriptions,” Cicek said.

https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2024/07/30/using-the-term-artificial-intelligence-in-product-descriptions-reduces-purchase-intentions/

[woozle@toot.cat]

@sjn I put "no difference" because it would depend a lot on the context and how I'm evaluating "quality" -- but I think in today's environment and in most contexts, I would tend to be significantly more leery of something where the maker thinks "made with AI" is a selling-point. If it was more, say, honesty in advertising (e.g. a future where this is a required disclosure), then my evaluation would depend much more on other factors (though for now, it's still a flag against).

[ohennig@mastodon.nu]

@sjn i wouldn’t necessarily say lower quality as much as ”if you can’t bother putting an effort in making this, why would I bother paying attention?”

[mcr314@todon.nl]

@sjn The one with the "Made with #AI" mark has no copyright, so you can just make as many copies as you like. It has no value, thus any price on it is nonsense.

[jrdepriest@infosec.exchange]

@sjn

At this point in the discourse "Made with AI" is more is a dogwhistle than a mark of good or bad quality. I wouldn't want to give my money to someone proud of using genAI at this point in the timeline.

[dalias@hachyderm.io]

@gisgeek @sjn It says a lot about you. That nothing you say is worth anything.

[rozeboosje@masto.ai]

@sjn "Quality" doesn't even enter the equation when it's AI. Similar to how pseudoscientific nonsense is said to be "not even wrong".

[jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net]

@sjn @yorgos

[x] AI mark signals no quality.

[glitzersachen@hachyderm.io]

@sjn @gisgeek

> I think that strictly within the software development field, you may have a point - under the right circumstances.

No.

[glitzersachen@hachyderm.io]

@gisgeek @sjn

It says, you want a Moebius style portrait as a profile picture (to grab our attention or say something about yourself), but it wasn't worth your time to draw it yourself.

Indeed, I'd say this tells us something about you and/or your relationship to us.

[yorgos@chaos.social]

@jwildeboer @sjn struggling hard to remember the last time I saw nearly 2K people online agreeing on something so unanimously!

(98% right now)

[gisgeek@floss.social]

@glitzersachen @sjn You have an anonymous generic icon and a clearly fake profile. That says a lot about you, too.

[rpbook@gts.phillipsuk.org]

@gisgeek @sjn

licenses and copyright exist for that.

Yes, they do. One of my big frustrations with LLMs is that AI companies violated licenses and copyrights on a vast scale.

Yet, when creators seek recompense for that, we're told that can't be allowed to happen because it would destroy the AI industry.