Toward a spectrum of AI trust
What I like about this post is that it brings a bit of nuance to proceedings.
Not every audience group or individual user will care about the provenance of the content they’re consuming. It also depends on a case-by-case basis; sometimes AI-assistance changes everything versus other times, it barely registers.
Think about when you watch a film or buy a concert ticket…
If you discover a film you assumed was written, directed, and performed by humans was largely generated with AI, it fundamentally changes how you interpret it. Since you begin to question the authorship, labor, and creative intent, the meaning of the work shifts. A film experience is about the output as well as the people behind it (think about the hundreds of names in the ending credits).
But now compare that to purchasing tickets online. You probably don’t care if the interface you’re using was designed with AI assistance. You more so care about the usability, speed, and general trust that your transaction will go through.
I use LLMs every single day and have done for four years at this point. In the beginning, I was experimenting. These days, they're central to my workflows. You like the aesthetic of the FIELD STATION website? Yes, it's based on conversations with Tom and a vision I had after collecting examples in this Are.na channel of the general vibe we wanted. But the code behind it is entirely AI-generated after many, many iterations.
My upcoming zine? To achieve the effect I want, which is practical analysis and advice done in the style of There Is No Antimemetics Division the output needs to be in a writing style different to my own. So I'm leaning heavily into AI-generated text based on a comprehensive plan for that. Does that make it creatively bankrupt? Of course not.
Source: UX Collective
Image: Midjourney (prompt in alt text)