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

People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 233 posts

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#191

Post by salt4034 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #186
AndriyKunitsyn wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So polite it hurts. I wonder if in the future people on the internet will leave deliberately offensive posts to show that they are human.

It's crazy, isn't it? I don't know what feels worse for me - that whenever I read a mannered, well-structured and somewhat verbose comment, I now suspect it wasn't authored by a human - or that, as I quickly realized, my own writing style feels eerily similar to ChatGPT output.

If it helps, your response here doesn't feel similar to ChatGPT output.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#192

Post by parl_match »

mvdtnz wrote: post #190
foxbyte wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand your frustration with the article, but let's approach it with an open mind. While the use of a "chatgpt detector" may have its limitations, it's essential to appreciate the researchers' effort in exploring new methods. The study may not be perfect, but it contributes to the ongoing conversation about the risks of using AI in AI training. Irony aside, let's keep the discussion going and encourage furt…

@dang are we ever going to do anything about this? You almost can't read a comment section in a thread about AI without this crap now.

[flagged]

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#193

Post by TeMPOraL »

salt4034 wrote: post #191
TeMPOraL wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy, isn't it? I don't know what feels worse for me - that whenever I read a mannered, well-structured and somewhat verbose comment, I now suspect it wasn't authored by a human - or that, as I quickly realized, my own writing style feels eerily similar to ChatGPT output.

If it helps, your response here doesn't feel similar to ChatGPT output.

Thanks. I've already noticed that I've started to unconsciously adjust my writing style to avoid that feeling of similarity to ChatGPT.

That said, compared to typical comments on-line (even on this site), using paragraphs, proper capitalization, correct punctuation, and avoiding typos already gets you more than half of the way to writing like ChatGPT...

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#194

Post by jameshart »

chickenpotpie wrote: post #161

This article is complete bunk. The researchers used a "chatgpt detector" which as we've seen over and over in academia, do not work. This study is completely unfounded. God I'm choking on the irony of an article about the dangers of using AI to train AI based on a study that used AI to detect AI

Everyone’s trying to take the shortcut.

Can someone in this space invest in doing the hard work to have experts manually curate data?

You know back before Wikipedia, publishers used to pay people to write and edit encyclopedias?

It doesn’t scale. Sure. That’s what the AI you’re building is for though - it will scale.

Throwing compute at ‘the entirety of the internet’ feels like such a lazy way to get what we’re after here.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#195

Post by haney »

jameshart wrote: post #194
chickenpotpie wrote: post #161

This article is complete bunk. The researchers used a "chatgpt detector" which as we've seen over and over in academia, do not work. This study is completely unfounded. God I'm choking on the irony of an article about the dangers of using AI to train AI based on a study that used AI to detect AI

Everyone’s trying to take the shortcut. Can someone in this space invest in doing the hard work to have experts manually curate data? You know back before Wikipedia, publishers used to pay people to write and edit encyclopedias? It doesn’t scale. Sure. That’s what the AI you’re building is for though - it will scale. Throwing compute at ‘the entirety of the internet’ feels like such a lazy way to get what we’re after…

The company that I work at does exactly the service that you're describing. We recently spun up a team of Math PhDs to help with data labeling. (https://www.invisible.co/). We're seeing more and more of our clients ask for graduate level data labelers and content creators.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#196

Post by benreesman »

chickenpotpie wrote: post #161

This article is complete bunk. The researchers used a "chatgpt detector" which as we've seen over and over in academia, do not work. This study is completely unfounded. God I'm choking on the irony of an article about the dangers of using AI to train AI based on a study that used AI to detect AI

My well-documented melancholy around the state of the LLM “conversation” notwithstanding, I’ll point out that there’s a long and generally productive history of adversarial training: from the earliest mugshot GANs to AlphaZero, getting these things to play against each other seems to produce interesting results.

Whatever the merits of this or that “ChatGPT detector”, the concept isn’t unprecedented or ridiculous.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#197

Post by TeMPOraL »

bluetomcat wrote: post #40

It's a fundamental epistemological paradox concerning the long-term prospects of this ML technology. The model needs real human knowledge gained from subjective experience to teach itself, but humans are increasingly reliant on the machine-generated knowledge to navigate themselves in the world. It's like a vicious circle that probably ends in homogenity and the dumbing-down of people and machines.

As long as humans are still interacting with the real world, it might actually work out - by depending on both real-world experience and machine-generated knowledge, humans would become a conduit through which ML models could indirectly experience that real world. The feedback loop would make the models smarter, not dumber.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#198

Post by sbierwagen »

mvdtnz wrote: post #190
foxbyte wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand your frustration with the article, but let's approach it with an open mind. While the use of a "chatgpt detector" may have its limitations, it's essential to appreciate the researchers' effort in exploring new methods. The study may not be perfect, but it contributes to the ongoing conversation about the risks of using AI in AI training. Irony aside, let's keep the discussion going and encourage furt…

@dang are we ever going to do anything about this? You almost can't read a comment section in a thread about AI without this crap now.

I mean, what rule do you actually want here?

ChatGPT has been RLHFed into a pretty distinctive style, but there's no reason to think a better LLM wouldn't have a more natural style. If AGI is possible, then HN will end up with AI users who contribute on an equal basis to the modal HN user, and then shortly after that, more equal. Should all AI be banned? Should you have to present a birth certificate to create an account?

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#199

Post by TeMPOraL »

jprete wrote: post #166
bugglebeetle wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will not solve any of Reddit’s problems or preserve their data value. While more complicated than an API, it’s trivial to run accounts flooding Reddit with AI generated content through browser automation. Even if they switch to app only access, this is still not meaningfully challenging and app-only would also destroy the service.

Reddit doesn’t care about hosting AI content as long as it engages people. The idea (probably wrong) was that Reddit didn’t want to give free unlimited access to the data to anyone training an AI.

That idea makes no sense though. The whole Reddit corpus from before ChatGPT is already out there on the Internet, packaged, mirrored and ready for download. The content that was submitted after ChatGPT became publicly available is "adulterated" by LLM-generated text, to an unknown but growing degree. I.e. all the valuable data is already out, and whatever new data Reddit would want to gatekeep is losing its value with each passing minute.

Re: People paid to train AI are outsourcing their work to AI

#200

Post by tremon »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #153
ars wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yah, I knew someone would reply something like that. Just because someone sometimes says something without understand does not in slightest mean that that is the common occurrence.

Look, if you're going to make a claim about LLMs and Human minds being intrinsically different, you're going to have to lay out a testable hypothesis. Saying "LLMs will never be able to solve programming problems with variable renaming" would be a testable hypothesis. "LLMs cannot reason about recursion" would be a testable hypothesis. Something like "LLMs can act as if they understand but they don't truly understand…

Here's one: LLMs will never be able to verify whether their output is true.
Post reply on HN