kalexandrite

In fact, I think you will find it is exceptionally clear writing. I think almost anyone can understand the differences and what is alter even with a quick read.

Some of the sexiest sentences in research finding I have read. “ Their results showed direct experimental evidence of chirality – an asymmetric magnetic structure, akin to a spiral staircase or a screw – in the spins of an altermagnetic candidate material.”

I appreciate the clarity that crystallizes in poetry this author manages!

While defending my reception of this writing is the last place I would have expected to start, the comments here were so dissatisfying that I feel both defensive and dissapointed.

I had excitedly clicked to see what 72 people thought about the perspective of the story. I was excited to read others ideas of time and how mechanical boundaries were contrasted to physical or human boundaries of life.

Instead I read singularly negative takes mostly accusations of the story being LLM produced or not.

Ok, but what a bummer.

I appreciate this story’s focus on time’s relationship to culture. I found the language reminiscent of other translations, a that quality that draws my attention to turns of phrase that don’t mean the same thing in English, while wielding meaning anyway - perhaps by being fulcrums in the story that they are contextualized around. I appreciate how it makes language feel new.

The question of time made me think of the film Unrest, and it feels pertinent that we can accept each others idiosyncratic time, (people who run late or early), but experience mechanical time that is unforgiving and ruthlessly precise, regardless of the outcome- or anti-vital consequence (flower disappearing/ forgetting) potential, one to which we increasingly we design the world as beholden to.

It seems many of us, in this political and cultural moment, are facing (watching, seeing, witnessing) the untimely demises of vital things we know and love, and consider core to living - our careers, our hopes, our jobs, our climate, our people - the cause of this loss is almost always attributable to that compelling mechanical potential being wielded carelessly, it mechanic zeal what we are also so coerced to pay attention. This experience of negotiating our attention and technical relentlessness -is the relationship that increasingly determine the flavor of our time in the material worlds.

And yet, even in the HN comments, the debate about the artificiality or potential use of LLM dominates - only highlighting the very wound being written about.

Even if the story was written by a human, the fact that we feel we have to ask about the use of LLMs already illustrates a distance that has been placed, a widening gap between ourselves and creative expression.

We question everything, lest we be fooled - or be seen being fooled.

I find the felt necessity of the inquiry itself the most devastating aspect of generative LLMs. We deserve to experience creative expression and then deconstruct it - but the use of LLMs has increasingly constrained us to deconstruct all creative expression - towards ensuring we can allow ourselves to experience it.

We have been robbed of culture twice, once by the training of LLMs, and now again in our attempt to shield ourselves from their presence.

It’s all so exhausting, and I’m angry we can’t just enjoy critiquing interesting and unforgivably clichéd writing, without first modeling an LLMs version in our heads to compare it to before assigning it value.

AI has some value as a tool, but the outright robbery of creative culture by current tech giants is an unforgivable and cruel theft that is plowing down huge swaths of what gives vital meaning to our lives - for so many of us.

I didn’t know about this program and am obsessed. Truly a case of creative constraints makes for exciting solutions. I am so excited to play around with this more (2 illustrations for an article down, 2 to go!)