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

311–320 of 452 posts

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

#311

Post by dwringer »

nottorp wrote: post #279
dwringer wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have the same argument all the time about musicians ripping off each others' compositions, no AI needed for that.

Same for movie scripts, but sometimes they do fail and something original squeezes through. I'm saying this can't be the case with a pattern matching/combining algorithm.

I've been playing around with stable diffusion a bit, and if you use an iterative process starting with either an extremely vivid and "code-golfed" prompt (like verses of poetry, concise prose, or elegant lisp), or your own illustration, and then feed the output back in again (with some fuzzing) along with the prompt, or a modified prompt, or a totally new prompt, after 2-3 generations the result becomes something that, although it undeniably integrates existing works in myriad ways, looks wholly unique and shaped by the user of the AI system more than by any of the individual contributing parts. I don't think this is terribly different from my creative process when I play music; I feel I have to work just as hard to avoid copping other peoples' stuff unconsciously.

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

#312

Post by blueridge »

My marketing team uses a suite of AI tools for everything: headlines, email copy, direct mail messaging, entire blog posts from start to finish. It's incoherent nonsense and yet no one cares. They celebrate new blog posts as if it we had something meaningful to say, then ask the whole company to re-post on LinkedIn. Any attempt to be helpful with copyediting or rewriting is met with total hostility and "stay in your lane" bullshit. All of these idiots make well over $200K to create "original marketing content" that is dead on arrival. It makes me sick to my stomach.

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

#313

Post by practice9 »

Nathanba wrote: post #247
notacoward wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's honestly one of the best comments in this entire thread. Instead of veering predictably into philosophy or anecdote, it provides concrete and feasible steps toward improvement. No better way to make the point that "AI generated" is not the problem and "garbage" is.

I find the AI competition to be yet another powerful reminder that all that matters are results. I can't count how much time I've spent being angry at people in my life, even though I always knew that it was stupid. Angry at bad docs, bad programmers, bad decisions, their inability to think or understand or care or feel. Now the AI removes it all. The AI generates truth out of thin air faster than any human can inven…

It will remove a large amount of stress from people's lives for sure. When an AI model can explain the non-obvious bug in the code written by the developer who left the company 2 years ago - that's quite powerful. Saves more time for other stuff

Though at some point it may create new sources of stress (like much discussed job security when the other job candidate is the AI model)

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

#314

Post by pixl97 »

zajio1am wrote: post #185

How is AI-generated garbage different from human-generated garbage? We are already drowning in the later. And from many recent examples, the former seems more interesting (although there is a clear selection bias).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

if 90% of everything is garbage things are really bad. If 99.999999% of things are garbage then everything is completely useless.

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

#315

Post by misto »

alexb_ wrote: post #257
misto wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Why is it that the current model for GMO aims to increase resistance to pesticides instead of simply growing the yield? What? TONS of GMO foods are made for things other than pesticides. Nutritional content, size, yield, taste - in fact one of the biggest uses of GMOs is making the plants need less pesticides! If you think the only reason GMOs exist is to sell more pesticides, you just do not know what you are talki…

Of course not the only reason, but a reason nonetheless.

"Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."[1]

Please bare in mind that I'm not advocating against GMO. I'm advocating against hailing GMO as a win:win to all of society and environment.

[1] https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471... "Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years"

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

#317

Post by throwaway290 »

sarahlwalks wrote: post #189
jkestner wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe AI content is just a way to launder copyright.

You can only say that if you also say that the creativity of human beings themselves is just a way to launder copyright.

This false equivalency just keeps being made.

Yeah absolutely, acceptable in case of humans and not acceptable in case of GPT.

GPT is not human. It is employed by a human to get around having to benefit other humans with attention and money.

Meanwhile human world is structured around fate, happiness of humans -- such things guide our considerations as to what to consider legal and what not.

There are other differences that make it OK for humans and not GPT (like we can attribute and credit what we learned from, whose ideas we used in work and what inspired us) but they are less significant than above principle

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

#318

Post by echobear »

the sheer power that AI has now and the likelihood that it will continue to advance has made me slightly concerned about how it will end up affecting the job market. If AI ends up being able to generate readable novels, or functional code, or otherwise, it could have a serious ripple effect

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

#319

Post by nonbirithm »

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 think that the root of the problem is not algorithms like the article suggests. It's ordinary people that can't resist the temptation of using AI to generate coherent-seeming results and flooding the Internet with them. But I don't blame you since I find AI tools to be useful in certain contexts, and I am unable to resist tinkering with Stable Diffusion. I guess the future for me will be one of navigating the resulting cognitive dissonance as I sift through pages of autogenerated SEO spam.

Maybe there could be a codified set of guidelines for how AI content should be shared. Or maybe an annotation system that separates the two across different websites? I only ever share something that comes from an AI on a siloed website just for AI content, but that's only because I have my own beliefs. More and more people on this site are asking if certain comments were generated with GPT-3 and it's a worrying sign.

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

#320

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #266
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…

Everyone is (rightfully) picking on your GMO example, but I want to address something else: > Today, it's self-evident to us as consumers when a product is cheap, low-quality, manufactured garbage from China. Correct. > In many cases we can choose to spend more and buy a handmade or custom version of the product we want. Not quite. It's increasingly hard to find a version of a product that's not low-quality garbage -…

Well, even so-called experts are not good at distinguishing between crap and good art. For example, Van Gogh and many other famous artists died in poverty.
Post reply on HN