Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting

ploum.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 452 posts

Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting

#211

Post by bitL »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #151
concordDance wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's relatively easy for a human to tell the difference between AI copy (as pollutes the web) and actual content. It is now. It definitely won't be when gpt gets popular.

It will be: GPT output is usually either garbage, repetitive, very wrong, subtly wrong, or inconsistent in writing style in a way humans aren't. (It sort of starts trying to say something different, in the "same style" as it started with, then switches style later .) When humans really can't tell the difference, well… https://xkcd.com/810/ seems appropriate.

Without revealing the origin, the latest models tested in private betas solve many of the points you mentioned.

Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting

#212

Post by IshKebab »

psychphysic wrote: post #62
victorvosk wrote: post #55

Honestly this feels like an old man screaming at the wind type thing. Inevitable doesn't even begin to describe was going to happen over the next 20 years. You should be much more terrified of when their content isn't garbage.

Absolutely. Got bored and stopped reading. This kind of ranting communication style sucks. So long as AI doesn't start selectively upvoting or watching other AI content this isn't even a concern. Nor is the premise sound AlphaZero trained by itself and it produced wonderful games easily better than any human.

He rolls out the old ItS jUsT pAtTeRn MaTcHiNg too. Disappointing.

Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting

#213

Post by ryandrake »

baxtr wrote: post #184

Sorry, I had to do it. I asked GPT3... How can we prevent drowning in garbage generated by AI? > Preventing drowning in AI-generated garbage can be a challenging task, but there are a few things that can be done to reduce the amount of garbage that is generated. One approach is to carefully design and train AI systems to generate high-quality content, rather than relying on large amounts of data to produce mediocre r…

I notice it did not offer a solution that involves outright banning itself… The ghost in the machine is showing

Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting

#214

Post by onepointsixC »

tylerrobinson wrote: post #123

I see parallels here with industrialization and automation in manufacturing and food production. Today, it's self-evident to us as consumers when a product is cheap, low-quality, manufactured garbage from China. In many cases we can choose to spend more and buy a handmade or custom version of the product we want. In the future we might knowingly consume AI-generated cheap text for some purposes and opt for "the real…

GMO's are a completely different thing though. A crop which who's gene's were hand picked by a human to be more drought resistant instead of naturally are completely different conversation and different morality. Vaccines make people uneasy, just like GMO's, but that doesn't mean that unease particularly equivalent to AI or the same moral issues.

AI already is drowning out human made content on websites for creatives. Aided in no small part with their curator's malicious insistence to not label their posts as AI generated. It's only going to get worse as AI art becomes better.

Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting

#215

Post by DoughnutHole »

kneebonian wrote: post #125
ren_engineer wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's a paper that basically shows these LLMs are pretty much tapped out in terms of quality data to train on, not sure if there are any legit architecture improvements in the works to improve results quality but it seems brute force training with more data may be about over - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.04325.pdf As for SEO, Google is going to have to stop being lazy and relying so much on backlinks and domain auth…

An interesting idea but really then aren't you just recreating reddit to an extent. The things people like or that are popular are upvoted because the voter agrees whereas what is unpopular gets down voted regardless of veracity because people like the way it sounds. Beyond that a once popular website or producer says or does something that offends the sensibilities of the internet crowd and then everyone goes and do…

People are already appending "reddit" to their search queries to filter out the SEO blogspam clogging up the results of a regular search. Reddit is already superior to base search results for anything that's not plain uncontroversial facts because at least you're getting an actual human's opinion, which you can treat and evaluate as such.

For all its flaws maybe becoming like reddit it what search needs. AI generated spam will likely always be better at gaming a search algorithm than a human. Human moderation has its flaws but at least we're very familiar with them - they might be worth dealing with if it keeps the internet vaguely usable.

Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting

#216

Post by Mordisquitos »

unglaublich wrote: post #166
Mordisquitos wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another problem is AI training on AI generated content. This could lead to degradation of results. That's only the first step in the degradation. In a worse case scenario, where AI-generated crap is not contained, imagine this: young and still immature humans "learning" their styles of writing, information, and social expectations from content generated by AI that itself trained on AI-generated content─and then mor…

Luckily, the phenomenon of puberty will make sure that young people absolutely do _not_ want to comply ;).

Ah, but they do want to fit in and speak like their peers, and while a significant part of their socialisation happens online, and as long as that is where they absorb most content, AI will soon infiltrate the circle of online strangers with whom they interact. That's all the more so considering that teenagers are prime targets for advertising networks of dubious ethical standards, who will be the first to deploy (or may already have deployed) well trained and self-correcting "How do you do, fellow kids?" NNs in potentially lucrative communities or social networks.

(I'm not always as doom-and-gloom as it may seem, I'm just in a pessimistic mood today for some reason)

Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting

#217

Post by misto »

alexb_ wrote: post #164
jmount wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't so much the "G" of GMOs, but that they are mono-crops usually licensed by near monopolies like Monsanto. Things are going to be bad when something goes wrong with one these, and there is no replacement and no way out of the licensing fees.

Monsanto is great, because you can immediately know that someone is just regurgitating points when they mention the company. Monsanto hasn't existed for years. And patents run out. Being concerned about patents is a very weak argument against technology which saves lives around the world (using non patented crops, no less!) and is responsible for allowing more people to eat healthier food.

First, Monsanto and its way of operating very much still exist. Just because it was purchased by another company (which of course resulted in an even greater monopoly), does not make its impact to the world disappear.

Second, everytime this topic comes up, pro-GMOist make it sound like the technology is making some great strides with providing 'healthier food for everyone' with no downside. Why is it that the current model for GMO aims to increase resistance to pesticides instead of simply growing the yield? It probably has nothing to do with the fact that the company that provides you the seeds, also sells the pesticide. And how about the said pesticides tendency to destroy the micro-organisms in the soil, in effect making it harder to grow crops, and ultimately starting a loop for "more GMO, more pesticide, more land, repeat".

Figure a less disruptive business model, and I might be more pro-GMO myself.

Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting

#218

Post by xdennis »

coldpie wrote: post #154
tylerrobinson wrote: post #123

I see parallels here with industrialization and automation in manufacturing and food production. Today, it's self-evident to us as consumers when a product is cheap, low-quality, manufactured garbage from China. In many cases we can choose to spend more and buy a handmade or custom version of the product we want. In the future we might knowingly consume AI-generated cheap text for some purposes and opt for "the real…

I agree with everything you wrote, but I really dislike contributing to the negative spin on GMOs. GMOs are super important for our future and a really amazing technology, they really do not deserve the bad wrap they've gotten from science ignorants and marketing departments. Please don't disparage GMOs :)

GMOs are terrible which is why they're banned in most European countries.

> bad wrap they've gotten from science ignorants

Science is not about blind trust. How many times have scientists discovered wondrous new things like asbestos, Thalidomide, leaded gasoline, teflon, only to take decades to realize the consequences?

Even if we blindly trust science, there are various other issues like: patenting life, monopolization, reducing genetic diversity, GMO cross-pollination, &c.

Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting

#219

Post by fnordpiglet »

ren_engineer wrote: post #117
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #15

In just the past couple of weeks, I've noticed lots of machine generated cooking recipes. They follow the typical SEO pandering blog format, where there's an unnecessary story about the author's trip somewhere or their child's school play being the inspiration for making this particular recipe, followed by the actual recipe details. The machine generated stories are even more pointless and meandering than what humans…

there's a paper that basically shows these LLMs are pretty much tapped out in terms of quality data to train on, not sure if there are any legit architecture improvements in the works to improve results quality but it seems brute force training with more data may be about over - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.04325.pdf As for SEO, Google is going to have to stop being lazy and relying so much on backlinks and domain auth…

Google doesn’t actually have to do anything at all other than slurp personal data up and use it to improve ad margins. Once your the default search engine, the default home page, and the default browser, you’ve locked 99% of the world into your portal. You control what people see and do, and they have to accept it. That’s what triggered the browser wars of the 1990’s - the realization that that trifecta is the keys to world domination.

Saying “yeah but Kagi” is talking about you and your tribe only. The world isn’t going to pay for Kagi or take the N steps required to switch. Microsoft realized they could kill Netscape by simply not requiring the user to download anything, then failed to consolidate. Google managed to be better for just long enough to consolidate so pervasively that any further investment in improvement is a literal waste of energy and money.

So, don’t hold your breath from an improvement in SEO garbage. It’ll just get worse. Definitely use Kagi and hopefully we will have great niche subscription based tools that have an incentive to be better. But don’t expect that Google perceives ANY problems with the status quo or that they have to do anything about anything other than increasing ad margins.

Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting

#220

Post by senko »

alexb_ wrote: post #164
jmount wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't so much the "G" of GMOs, but that they are mono-crops usually licensed by near monopolies like Monsanto. Things are going to be bad when something goes wrong with one these, and there is no replacement and no way out of the licensing fees.

Monsanto is great, because you can immediately know that someone is just regurgitating points when they mention the company. Monsanto hasn't existed for years. And patents run out. Being concerned about patents is a very weak argument against technology which saves lives around the world (using non patented crops, no less!) and is responsible for allowing more people to eat healthier food.

> Monsanto hasn't existed for years.

Of course it has, Bayer just tried to ditch the bad brand image:

> The closing sets the stage for the 117-year-old agribusiness brand name “Monsanto” to be dropped by Bayer. Monsanto’s efforts to promote genetically modified crops have been the subject of much controversy from anti-GMO activists, and the U.S. company has spent millions of dollars over the years on brand and corporate ad campaigns to improve its overall image.

It's now called Bayer Crop Science Division and does the same thing.

Are you also outraged if someone says Facebook instead of Meta, although the social network is just one of the products from the company called Meta today?

Post reply on HN