The AI bullshit singularity
successfulsoftware.net
The AI bullshit singularity
1–10 of 187 posts
Re: The AI bullshit singularity
#2I broadly agree with that. Repeated training with self-generated data is the technological equivalent of incest and can lead to nothing good.
Re: The AI bullshit singularity
#3When the ELIZA chatbot came out (1964), some users claimed it was intelligent and sentient.
Then, they were shown the diagram that describes its behavior. Even after that, they kept insisting it was sentient, etc.
Some people just want to believe bullshit.
Re: The AI bullshit singularity
#4I always found the idea of infinitely self improving AI to be suspect. Let’s say we have a super smart AI with intelligence 1, and it uses all that to improve itself by 0.5. Then that new 1.5 uses itself to improve by 0.25. Then 0.125, etc etc. obviously it’s always increasing, but it’s not going to have the runaway effect people think.
Re: The AI bullshit singularity
#5The same goes for image generation models, AI art already has a tendency to veer into the same clichés and those are only going to get reinforced if newer models are trained on newer scrapes which now include the million hyper-derivative AI images being uploaded to places like DeviantArt, Twitter and Pixiv every day. Those vendors who got in early have a moat in the form of untainted scrapes, but they'll eventually need new data to keep up with new subjects/styles/etc.
Re: The AI bullshit singularity
#6Good cryptographic solutions exist for these problems
Re: The AI bullshit singularity
#7The internet is already mostly filled with low quality bullshit though, and GPT-4/Gemini are much better writers than whoever is churning out SEO as we know it now.
It's a lazy argument to imply this 1. invalidates the technological achievement 2. prevents iterative improvement a la the singularity. For one, the Internet itself is not bullshit just because a lot of spammers/hustlers put bad content on it to try to make money. And secondly, you can curate datasets... nothings stopping researchers from training LLMs on shitty SEO now, and if they wanted to they could curate datasets going forward to try to prevent LLM-spam from entering the training sets of future models.
And finally, people already use reputation/identity/branding and proxies for it as quality filters on the internet. For example, this is an unfamiliar blogger to me and so I entered it with skepticism I wouldn't have with people like Gwern or Lynn Alden. Good writing from people like Gwern and Lynn Alden won't disappear just because LLM content exists on the internet - it just makes reputations and identity (eg to a real human) more important.
Re: The AI bullshit singularity
#8> (…) we could quickly end up with an Internet that is mostly bullshit
Oh sweet summer child, you must be new here.
Re: The AI bullshit singularity
#9Doesn't that just mean he who can get the best human feedback will get the best ai? If the quality of AI depends on not feeding on 'fake' input, the key becomes getting verified real input.
My first thought was that this would create more money in genuine creativity, which would be great. But instead it feels more likely there will be much more telemetry and tracking to determine whether an input is made by you (and thus by a human) or not.
"Only trust stuff that can be traced to a specific human" is a great way weed out non-human stuff. But it requires a pretty effective surveillance system...
Re: The AI bullshit singularity
#10This super low quality, low effort, non-original content does not belong on hacker news imho much less the top of the front page. I’ll take my downvotes.