unsignedint

Most people using AI aren't necessarily shooting for a perfect 100. They're often aiming for something more like a 60 or 70. If they really need a 100, they'll probably hire a professional.

But a lot of people simply don't have the budget, the connections, or even the ability to articulate what they want in a way that an artist can easily understand. Conversely, not every artist has the communication or client-facing skills needed to really align with what the client has in mind.

In that context, AI can still be a huge improvement over the 10 or 20 they might otherwise manage through DIY.

I feel like this is more of a curation issue than an issue with using AI itself. If someone is using AI to distill information to the point where important context gets lost, then yeah, I think they are definitely doing it wrong.

What I often notice in pull request descriptions isn't necessarily a problem with them being written by AI. It's the lack of nuance. They don't tell me exactly what the author expects the reviewer to pay attention to, what might be risky, or where they would particularly value another set of eyes. Being able to articulate those things is far more important to me than whether AI was involved in writing the text.

I would also push back a little on the author's point about imperfections. Being able to say that imperfections are fine somewhat ignores the elephant in the room: bias. Bias can have very real consequences. The author may personally be more tolerant of variations or imperfections in writing, but that's not something we can realistically expect from everyone. I'm also not sure it's fair to put the burden of dealing with those biases entirely on the person doing the writing.

That's also why I keep coming back to the expectation of having a distinctive "voice." Not everyone has the same attachment to their writing voice in the first place. For some people, getting their ideas across clearly and being understood matters much more. If voice isn't something they particularly value or identify with, then insisting that they preserve it feels somewhat moot.

I feel like NMS is definitely catered to people who prefer to define their own way of having fun. There’s practically zero hand-holding. There isn’t much emphasis on narrative either, and the story is almost completely optional. It’s more about finding your own game within the game, where simply existing and exploring such a vast universe can be the whole point.

In that sense, I’d argue it’s almost more of an environment simulator than a traditional game. I can totally see why someone coming into it expecting a strong narrative, memorable characters, and lots of character development might end up disappointed.

For me, though, this is the game I keep coming back to. There’s just nothing quite like heading into a world that nobody has ever visited, with a pretty good chance that nobody else will ever visit it, and still leaving your little mark there.

Like I said, I'm not denying the value of expressiveness at all, nor am I suggesting that anyone who values it should ever be denied the ability to express themselves as they please.

I just feel that when people talk about linguistic diversity or having a distinctive "voice," they sometimes overlook the fact that many people simply don't have a strong attachment to those things. A lot of people are primarily concerned with getting their ideas across clearly, and many already struggle with that before they even have the capacity to worry about how expressive or distinctive their language is.

I don't think that makes their use of language somehow poorer or less human. It just means they have different priorities for what they need language to accomplish.

But then, is that necessarily a bad thing?

In most cases where language is being used as a vehicle for exchanging ideas, isn't some degree of uniformity actually desirable for clarity? I personally wouldn't want instruction manuals to be full of colorful or highly individualized language, for instance.

That's not to say linguistic diversity is meaningless, but I would argue that this particular concern is fairly specialized and matters much more in literature and other creative forms of writing.

This definitely feels like an overgeneralization. For what it’s worth, there are plenty of people who don’t say "itadakimasu" at restaurants but would say it when they’re invited to someone’s home as a guest, for example. More people, however, seem to say "gochisousama deshita" (thank you for the food) when leaving, whether at a restaurant or someone’s home.

Some people do say "itadakimasu" out of habit even when they’re eating alone. They may have grown up with stricter manners around meals, to the point where it’s simply baked into their routine. But it’s far from universal. Dramas and other shows may make it seem more universal than it actually is, partly because saying it out loud is more performative and works better on screen.

I believe some places here in Washington are already using this type of solution. As someone with a relatively strong accent, to the point that it often confuses those cheap automated voice systems, I have mixed feelings about it.

On one hand, my accented English could be misunderstood. On the other hand, some of the more advanced systems might actually be able to recognize that I’m speaking Japanese right away, whereas a human operator may first have to figure out what language I’m speaking.

Considering that if I’m calling 911, I’m probably going to be panicked or at least dealing with something urgent, that could be one area where I see a real advantage.

A lot of LLM-based systems seem to be pretty good at detecting and handling many different languages, at least.

> In general they also don't seem to collaborate much with vtubers outside of their space, so I'm sure there are some rules in play there.

I think it's more about market dynamics than strict rules. There are clear benefits to collaborating within the same agency because it helps introduce audiences to other talents under the same umbrella. Everyone involved has a chance to grow together.

Once you start collaborating outside the agency, you're inevitably splitting viewers' time, attention, and even spending across different groups. Since every fan only has so much time and money to go around, those collaborations don't always make business sense.

That's not to say they never happen. If a collaboration is expected to bring in new audiences, significantly increase exposure, or otherwise benefit both sides, then it's much easier to justify. But without that kind of upside, it can end up helping another agency just as much, or even more, than your own.

I'm a Vtuber myself. I'm an indie, self supported, just for fun type rather than someone trying to make a living from it.

If you're genuinely interested in becoming a Vtuber, the barrier to entry is surprisingly low. You don't necessarily need to commission a custom model or a unique character design. You can use one of the VR avatar generators, which is what my avatar is based on, or even start with a modified VR avatar if its license allows it. That's actually a pretty common approach in the indie scene.

As the article mentions, the market is definitely saturated, so I wouldn't go into it expecting to make a lot of money. For what it's worth, a large number of Vtubers don't even meet YouTube's monetization threshold. Personally, I think that's part of what makes the community interesting. I tend to enjoy following smaller creators more than the big agency names.

One thing I'd add is that I think the article overgeneralizes the AI topic a bit and leans more toward wishful thinking. A lot of the hesitation around AI, especially at major agencies, comes from the fact that their character designs are often commissioned from well known artists. That creates a relationship between the performer and the artist, often referred to as the "Mama" or "Papa" relationship, and there can be a lot of sensitivity around how those designs are used. To be fair, those dynamics can show up in plenty of situations besides AI.

If you don't have those constraints, people tend to be much more relaxed about AI. Some creators who rely heavily on fan art are naturally more opinionated about it than others, but it really varies from person to person.

The way I've come to think about Blender, and to some extent other tools in the same space, is that being a master of the tool as an operator and having the artistic ability to create meaningful work are two different skills. The best artists often have a good balance of both, but plenty of people are much stronger in one area than the other.

Since Blender is free, I think it's attracted a lot of people whose strengths are heavily weighted toward one side or the other.

Going back to the soccer analogy, you might be incredibly good at kicking the ball, but playing competitively and making meaningful plays on the field requires a completely different set of skills.

I'm feeling the same way. People naturally pick up writing habits from what they read, especially if they haven't really developed their own style yet. So it seems only natural that, after spending a lot of time reading AI generated text, some of those patterns start creeping into their own writing.

The less established someone's writing style or vocabulary is, the more susceptible they probably are to that influence. I don't necessarily see it as inherently good or bad. People have always picked up habits from the things they read. AI is just another source of influence, alongside books, blogs, journalists, or other writers. Some influences are great, and some are less so.