Post #618200

2026-03-10 22:24 UTC

From what I've observed, people who claim that LLMs can replace artists don't understand art, people who claim that they can replace musicians don't understand music, people who claim that they can replace writers don't understand literature, and people who claim they can replace translators don't rely on translations. If I had a button that would erase LLMs from the world but it would take machine translations away (which is a false dichotomy anyway), I would absolutely still press it.

Replies (4)

@Gargron__dup_1@mastodon.social 2026-03-10 22:29

Technology is not inevitable. We've decided not to have asbestos in our walls, lead in our pipes, or carginogenic chemicals in our food. (If you're going to argue that it's not everywhere, where would you rather live?) We could just not do LLMs. It's allowed.

Open ##618217
@freequaybuoy@mastodon.social 2026-03-10 22:32

@Gargron Just before LLMs burst onto the scene, not long after my Creative Writing MA, a friend's partner told me about them and how they could, "write a novel as well a human." I think he expected me to be shocked or horrified by this, but as a student of literature and writing, I was far more astonished that apparently someone had come up with a way to determine the final analysis of a text! A Computer Science analogy might be someone telling you they'd found a solution to the Halting Problem

Open ##618245
@JeffGrigg@mastodon.social 2026-03-10 22:34

@Gargron@mastodon.social My experience has been that LLM translations are almost good enough to verify that a message is a scam.

Open ##618268
@mspong@mastodon.social 2026-03-11 02:21

@Gargron@mastodon.social When they say LLMs can replace artists what they mean is, "We have enough art now. The sum total of art we have is sufficient. Remixing and blending the corpus of art will be good enough forever. If not we can just tap some humans afflicted with the artist disease to generate some more, and it will be cheaper! They'll do it for free! Fools."

Open ##620372