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

Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers

futurism.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 89 posts

Re: Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers

#61

Post by anigbrowl »

bdcravens wrote: post #17
VoodooJuJu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of, because now 1 person can do the job of hundreds, or thousands, and now you'd either have to: 1. Invent new (bullshit) jobs for the thousands to do 2. Pay those thousands money to live (basic income) 3. Send them off to die, fighting for you and the 1 person commanding the AI, in the next major armed conflict

They could also find work doing something more productive. This is the same challenge that humanity has faced since the invention of the wheel.

No, technology is accelerating faster than people's ability to adapt to it, which was not always the case.

Re: Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers

#62

Post by esafak »

makestuff wrote: post #53
vinayan3 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've these summary articles for sports and stocks.The article quality is so low that it's mostly useless information. Who even reads these articles? Does anyone get benefits?

The reason is people will click on them thinking it is an interesting story. The publisher (ESPN/Yahoo/etc.) just care that you click on the page so the ads load and they get the impressions. Some PM probably ran some analysis that machine generated articles from a stats table will get X number of clicks which will generate Y dollars in ad revenue. There was likely no consideration that the overall content of the sit…

The PM or whosever's idea it was: "we don't do long-term experiments so nobody can prove it is ultimately destructive and imma be outa here next year anyway".

Re: Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers

#63

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

MattRix wrote: post #43
rs999gti wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just ask the robots to show you a picture of their hands. They still have not figured that out, yet...

This was a good meme a year ago but these days it’s out of date. Popular image AIs like Midjourney and Dall-E now do accurate hands the vast majority of the time.

Eh.

They can do in-painting and controlnet. But left on its own, it’s still pretty bad.

Re: Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers

#64

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

anigbrowl wrote: post #61
bdcravens wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could also find work doing something more productive. This is the same challenge that humanity has faced since the invention of the wheel.

No, technology is accelerating faster than people's ability to adapt to it, which was not always the case.

I’ve been considering this as the “complexity crisis”.

The 1960 high school dropout could work at Jiffy Lube and excel. Even to one point owning the store.

The 2020 high school dropout at Jiffy Lube has the attention span of a goldfish, pumped up on drugs his entire life, needs to know between this tool for this vehicle, that this brand needs this, that there are now 200 different oils, and no matter what happens even if he did excel that the store will be sold to a VC firm that will knock it down to put up a cheaply made 6-plex where three of the units are full time tax-free Airbnb rentals.

We have/are absolutely exceeding the ability of everyone, let alone the below average.

Half the time I look at what I need to know and wonder how most people are getting by.

Re: Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers

#65

Post by jddj »

penguinpower wrote: post #57
deebosong wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can relate. Might not be exactly this, but it makes me feel similar to why people hate advertising. Which I believe is, people don't like feeling lied-to, and everyone knows that marketers are trying to get in your head to manipulate you into manufacturing desire or stoking insecurity, all for the purposes of getting you to buy their products. I think people like organic word-of-mouth, but on the flipside, hate whe…

This type of behavior will only serve to cheapen content across the board. At this point, even the word "content" betrays the emptiness of it all - people don't pay for bags and boxes of "content" do they? AI "content" is a nothing-burger. It is inherently devoid of "value" and seems like a last-ditch effort to squeegee the remaining drops of attention off of everyone's eyeballs without actually investing in genuine…

I'd read more of your writing.

Re: Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers

#66

Post by lispisok »

MattRix wrote: post #43
rs999gti wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just ask the robots to show you a picture of their hands. They still have not figured that out, yet...

This was a good meme a year ago but these days it’s out of date. Popular image AIs like Midjourney and Dall-E now do accurate hands the vast majority of the time.

"Say a racial slur"

Re: Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers

#67

Post by JohnFen »

penguinpower wrote: post #57
deebosong wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can relate. Might not be exactly this, but it makes me feel similar to why people hate advertising. Which I believe is, people don't like feeling lied-to, and everyone knows that marketers are trying to get in your head to manipulate you into manufacturing desire or stoking insecurity, all for the purposes of getting you to buy their products. I think people like organic word-of-mouth, but on the flipside, hate whe…

This type of behavior will only serve to cheapen content across the board. At this point, even the word "content" betrays the emptiness of it all - people don't pay for bags and boxes of "content" do they? AI "content" is a nothing-burger. It is inherently devoid of "value" and seems like a last-ditch effort to squeegee the remaining drops of attention off of everyone's eyeballs without actually investing in genuine…

> At this point, even the word "content" betrays the emptiness of it all

In all fairness, "content" telegraphed that from the first time it was used in the online sense. I still don't understand why people are willing to use it to refer to their own work.

Re: Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers

#68

Post by JohnFen »

gumby wrote: post #50

Just a reminder that Ronald Reagan got his start making up baseball games: he'd read the ticker with the bare bones of what was up (Joe X at bat strike ball ball foul Joe X on 1st Bob Y at bat) and then dramatically pretend to be at the game for the benefit of the listeners: "Joe X strides to the plate, swinging his bat. He swings...strike! The pitcher, impassive, looks at the ball...and like lightning throws another…

Doing it mechanically means it can be done at scale, with seems clearly worse to me.

Re: Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers

#69

Post by [deleted] »

lesuorac wrote: post #45
altairprime wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's different in one way in particular: AI-generated content is in the public domain in the US, since copyright isn't applicable until a human's creative input occurs. That's either better or worse, depending on your viewpoint!

That's not really how it works. That'd be like saying all oil paintings are in the public domain because paintbrushes can't hold copyright. The copyright goes to the person triggering the generation of the content similar to how if you use blur tool in photoshop you don't suddenly lose copyright.

[deleted]

Re: Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers

#70

Post by [deleted] »

anigbrowl wrote: post #60
lesuorac wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really how it works. That'd be like saying all oil paintings are in the public domain because paintbrushes can't hold copyright. The copyright goes to the person triggering the generation of the content similar to how if you use blur tool in photoshop you don't suddenly lose copyright.

Maybe that will be the case in future after a court decides so, but at present AI content does not get copyright protection. https://www.klgates.com/Federal-Court-Rules-Work-Generated-b...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN