The whole premise of checking for human writing is daft
It takes one useful method of thinking and promotes it into the only respectable one. It confuses the exercise with the outcome, the labour with the intelligence, and the movement of fingers with the movement of a mind. A person can type 3,000 words by hand and have no thought pass through their head beyond the need to finish before lunch.
- ▪It takes one useful method of thinking and promotes it into the only respectable one.
- ▪It confuses the exercise with the outcome, the labour with the intelligence, and the movement of fingers with the movement of a mind.
- ▪A person can type 3,000 words by hand and have no thought pass through their head beyond the need to finish before lunch.
Hacker News (Front Page) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 570 of its stories. Top-voted stories on Hacker News.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
I understand why people want you to write; because it’s good for you, because it focuses a wandering thought, because the first sentence is usually rubbish and the seventh is often better, because you learn cadence and structure and argument through repetition, because there are things you don’t know you believe until you try to explain them, and because spending an afternoon wrestling a stubborn idea into words can leave you with a stronger brain; but none of this explains why we’ve decided that the physical production of every word, one keystroke at a time, must now serve as a test of whether a thought is human. It’s daft. It takes one useful method of thinking and promotes it into the only respectable one.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Mohammed Shehu, PhD - AI strategist.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Mohammed Shehu, PhD - AI strategist
