It’s any interesting thread for sure, but while reading through this I couldn’t help but think that the point of these ideas are for a person to read and consider deeply. What is the point of having a machine do this “thinking” for us? The thinking is the point.

And that’s the problem with a lot of chatbot usage in the wild: it’s saving you from having to think about things where thinking about them is the point. E.g. hobby writing, homework, and personal correspondence. That’s obviously not the only usage, but it’s certainly the basis for some of the more common use cases, and I find that depressing as hell.

so consider them deeply. Why does the value diminish if discovered by a machine as long as the value is in the thinking?

This is a software engineering forum. Most of the engineer types here lack the critical education needed to appreciate this sort of thing. I have a literary education and I’m actually shocked at how good most of these threads are.

That doesn’t speak well towards your literary education, candidly.

We should try posting this on a literary discussion forum and see the responses there. I expect a lot of AI FUD and envy but that’ll be evidence in this tools favor.

lol yes that’s the only reason anyone could find this uh literary analysis less than compelling

I think most engineer types avoid that kind of analysis on purpose.

Programmers tend to lean two ways: math-oriented or literature-oriented. The math types tend to become FAANG engineers. The literature oriented ones tend to start startups and become product managers and indie game devs and Laravel artisans.

I had a look at that. The notion of a "collective brain" is similar to that of "civilization". It is not a novel notion, and the connections shown there are trivial and uninspiring.