How long before a Wikipedia article will reference an AI generated text as an authoritative source? Or have we already passed that point?
Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting
231–240 of 452 posts
Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, monopolizat…
> GMOs are terrible
In what way?
> various other issues like: patenting life, monopolization, reducing genetic diversity, GMO cross-pollination
Agree these are all terrible, but nothing there is GMO-specific. That's all either bad agricultural practices like mono-cropping that can be done with any crop, or societal problems related to intellectual property or markets.
Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting
#233Earlier 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.
The GPT output I've been making using openAI's chatpot is indistinguishable from what the bottom 70% of commentators put out.
But an environment glutted with that content is also worthless. I read for the top 10% that has genuinely novel thoughts.
Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting
#234I 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…
We already do as you're saying with "content". The throwaway paperback novels are already predictable cheap trash (I still read them, not judging, but they're providing a different type of stimulation for which that bar is lower than something that makes you think). These are already written in a formulaic way that is equivalent to being computer generated, it just took a bit more human effort until now. Same for TV programming, art, I assume video games, etc...
Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting
#235Earlier 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.
Monsanto was bought by Bayer in 2018. Its brand disappeared, but its products continue.
Although I'm not sure it's great branding when the maker of Roundup is bought by the maker of Zyklon B.
Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting
#236Funny, I just realized that until today reading was an essentially social human thing.
Any sufficiently long piece of writing that made some sense had been written by another human, perhaps dead but still it was a form of connection to another life.
Now, well it’s a maybe. Odd
Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting
#237The point this piece misses:
The data being put on the internet is often the hand-selected highest quality outputs of the image/text generator, or even human-edited to improve quality further. This puts it back in the realm of good training material.
Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting
#238I've been known to start ranting when I'm searching on some topic that attracts SEO garbage (e.g., Python), and realize I'm in the nth different SEO garbage article search hit. I wonder whether a winning solution to the coming massively-parallel "AI" megaspew will emerge, how it will work, and whether Google will be the ones to do it. Or will the bulk of consumers overwhelmingly submit, and accept it as normal, much…
Search engines like Google are probably a dying technology. The next disruptive innovation in that space will be "answer engines" that use GPT like technology to dynamically generate specific answers to questions rather than linking users to third-party sites. This will allow for controlling the entire user experience and serving ads embedded in the generated content.
Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting
#239I've been known to start ranting when I'm searching on some topic that attracts SEO garbage (e.g., Python), and realize I'm in the nth different SEO garbage article search hit. I wonder whether a winning solution to the coming massively-parallel "AI" megaspew will emerge, how it will work, and whether Google will be the ones to do it. Or will the bulk of consumers overwhelmingly submit, and accept it as normal, much…
Here’s a solution:
Go ask ChatGPT your question about python.
It’s spew is probably better than the SEO spew.
I feel like species traitor taking the side of the AI, but I think this is probably a decent way of answering a lot of questions based on a factual and rational basis that have been answered multiple times. A lot of hoopla is made over the fact you can trick it with a false premise into giving a false answer (I’d note the false premise makes all answers true), but if it can simulate a Linux box reasonably well, it can answer your questions in python module imports better than sifting through page rank collections of SEO crap.
Edit: I also think this doesn’t undermine the value of stack overflow. Bots answering there probably does. But stack overflow has always struggled with simple redundant questions and trying to curate them away in favor of new and interesting questions, and promoting novel and well explained answers. ChatGPT probably won’t do that for you. But it can load shed the redundant stuff highly effectively. And, over time, it’ll get more nuanced as more nuanced questions and answers are incorporated. But the “I need human help” button is still there and thank goodness. Maybe the load shedding will enhance the experience on SO for everyone?
Re: Drowning in AI Generated Garbage: the silent war we are fighting
#240Sorry, 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…
A propos, has anybody asked The Last Question*?[0]
"Can the entropy of the universe be reversed?"