I can see this happening, and it might already be happening, for childrens books. These are books that are always told orally, parents narrating for their children. I'm sure some are already using AI for this.

I can also see this replacing audiobooks, and certainly narration services. If the AI knows the reader and can tailor how they read the book for that reader, that could be desirable. Or, more likely, it will be a way for publishers to save a bit of money.

I can also certainly see some authors writing a book with AI prompts that allow the AI to expand on certain parts while keeping others fixed. It's actually an intriguing idea that I might try myself (though maybe not).

I also read for plot/story/character, and frankly, a lot of writers suffer on that front.

Badly written stories can be very successful. Project Hail Mary has (far as I could get into it) terribly bland writing and a cardboard protagonist (and scenery, and everything). Harry Potter, especially at the beginning, wasn't that well written, either (though granted not as bad as Project Hail Mary). I'm sure there are a lot more examples.

In that respect, even if you feel that AI isn't that great at writing, it probably surpasses many successful writers. It is already better-than-human in some respects for a subset of writers, perhaps even the majority of writers, just like it's better-than-human in most other respects. It's always worth remembering that about half the population has below-average IQ. :) Comparing the AI to your most beloved authors (especially those who can't, for obvious reasons, publish new books) only says about AI that it doesn't (far as you know) surpass the best of the best.

Also, I assume that you haven't worked with AI for writing. Its entire point is that it can understand context and your guidelines. The other thing is that AI isn't the end all, just like an editor isn't. As a writer you can certainly decide not to listen to what the AI (or the editor) suggests. As a writer before AI, you'd have gone to a critique group, passed your book by a trusted first reader, and the like. A book typically gets suggestions from a lot of people, and you'd be a bad author if you took every suggestion, and a good one if you understand that a suggestion means that there's a problem that you need to solve. The AI is an addition or replacement for some of these people.

LLMs are good for writing, like they are good for progamming. You just have to use them as a tool. If you use them to do your entire work for you, you will get something very mediocre. If you use them to do a lot of work for you and oversee them, you could get some really nice things done.

Speak for yourself. I've read some authors who really appreciate AI. I'd bet that there's quite a good percentage of writers who at least use it to edit their prose for grammar and such, but I also read those who use AI for help with character names, side plots, etc. I don't see anything bad in that. The writer is still in control of what to choose and what fits, but it's nice to have someone who can throw you ideas.

The current administration has already been going the way communism went. It's been buying a stake in companies (like Intel) and giving them preferential treatment. The "free market" is no longer free, even within the US. It's one thing to protect against foreign products, a completely different thing to play favourites with local companies.

Do you really think that suicides are logical? That was a strange way to phrase it. Still, if you read the article, you will see that at least some of these people were highly invested in it, including having their family move to another city to allow them to study for the exam, or taking a loan. They had a lot riding on that test.

India's suicide rate is rather average. There are fewer suicides per capita than in the US or some European nations, and a little more than Canada or some other European nations. (This is based on the Wikipedia page on suicide rate and recent stats reported by Gemini.) The large number of suicides is purely because India has 1.5 billion people, which is a lot more than other nations. So in absolute numbers it will have more suicides.

By the way, apparently (according to Gemini), about 1100 college students in the US commit suicide per year.

As the US restricts free commerce more, people look toward the only real alternative, which is China. This is the case here, too, with Chinese AI models growing in dominance.

I think of this in AD&D terms, with China being Lawful Evil and the US currently being Chaotic Neutral (more like Chaotic Stupid, but still...). It seem natural that people would prefer Lawful, as it's easier to deal with.

News at 11.

During the pandemic, when there was choice between studying remotely and not studying, the good thing to do was to provide laptops. Now that it's less needed, it's less needed.

How is this news? The money wasn't wasted, it was put to good and necessary use.

Thanks for posting. Already read that on Engadget, but it's good to have a reference here.

The list starts only somewhat questionable, then degrades into, as you say, "Mr. Adolf broadcasting". I liked that summary.

Sure, the researchers might have ignored some things, but then again, the writer hasn't done any research. FUD is easy to spread, and "human slop" is easy to write. Lots of people write FUD about AI, it's the in thing. I think that in general AI slop is better.

Found that funny.

No, it actually makes sense if a few of the employees were previous unemployed.

From the summary, it's clear that the people who used AI saw a great increase in productivity. That these people then chose to spend more time on work because of this is likely because the increased productivity excited them.

So basically, I don't see a problem here. AI working as promised and people being overly enthusiastic is quite a reasonable outcome. I've yet to read the full article, so there might be more there, but far as I'm concerned, that's quite an optimistic outcome.

doctors and physiologists have given up. "Just do the bare minimum. It's better than doing nothing."

The only problem I currently have is that I no longer think that a longer lifespan is beneficial. I have no will to live through WW3 or any other global or local upheaval or pandemic or whatnot. When growing up the future looked good. Then in the 90s people started imagining the future as dystopian. I disliked that notion, but recent years led me to think it's where we're going.

So I don't currently see extending my lifespan as something that's worth the effort.

I think you're misrepresenting the issue here. None of those Korean grunt workers will ever get to do more advanced creative work in Japan.