211–220 of 252 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our brains have been under attack for years. Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and company have already spent decades and billions doing just that. With capabilities already in the AI realm.
Still can’t decide how terrified should I be that somehow zuck is the good guy in the AI wars.
The LLM/generative-AI genie is out of the lamp. I'm just some random midwit, but some predictions: - Slop will continue to become cheaper to generate, and people will only notice the obvious stuff - Hyperpersonalized content will abound, yet authenticity will run dry - The lack of authenticity in electronic channels will drive a small segment of people offline into less fakeable (for now) social contexts - Humans onl…
Fifteen years ago (I remember the apartment where I had this thought), it occurred to me that time was running out to write an authentic novel. Soon, computers would generate whole stories in an endless variety of styles, and even if future authors would hand write a book from start to finish, they would likely have been influenced by other artificial writing at some point. Readers would be unable to emotionally conn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it gets bad enough that people will pay, I think some will pay for exclusively real content. People who pay for content demonstrate that they have disposable income and are willing to spend it, which makes them prime population for advertisers to target. By paying, they're distinguishing themselves for the net-near-worthless population of free users. There's a huge pressure for advertisers to tap into that juicy…
Real content doesnt necessarily mean advertising free. There are tons of high quality pages and services funded by ads. The problem is with the spam and slop. Any sucessful walled garden will need to keep this crap out. banning adds is just one way. Content review is another.
There are some, but it's a rounding error compared to the ad-funded slop. Basing your business model around advertising creates strong perverse incentives, pitting you against your users/customers. Sometimes, a company gets enough return on advertising investment they can fund side ventures off their marketing budget - this creates an UBI-like low pressure space for quality content to grow. But stuff funded directly from ads? It's safe to assume the content there is secondary at best, and exists primarily as a vector to bait you so you can be exposed to ads.
> banning adds is just one way. Content review is another.
Right, but they're complementary. Content review gets easier when you cut out 99% of crap at the source by fiat, and with a hard line drawn, the reviewers are much harder for marketers to compromise either.
Beyond slop, there will be personalized slop where AI 'optimizes' articles for each reader. And beyond slop, there will be AI models that do product placement. OpenAI's "publisher partnerships" deck explains https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40310228 So soon you'll go to a news website and get the political filter bubble that reinforces - or outrages - your prejudices to maximize your engagement. And in the middle…
What happens if AI slop learns that I like accurate content and it suddenly gets good?
Then it'll build up habits and routines with you. You'll feel good that your AI slop is actually good AI and is trying to benefit you.
All the while, the verified reports and data always supports your expectations and worldview. It's almost perfect, aside from the fact it sometimes cites The Federalist more than it should. And it convinced you to throw out all your pillows and buy a whole new set for your family. But you're able to look past it, because it's actually good AI.
It's AI generated spam. Why not simply call it AI spam, as already in use by e.g. [1][2][3]. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-spam-google-ruin-internet... [2] https://www.ghostery.com/blog/how-to-prepare-for-ai-spam [3] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/13/google_ai_spam/
It's definitely not the same. Spam is trying to sell you something, e.g. an unsolicited email peddling a supplements. Slop is low-quality content, e.g. someone taking a bunch of bird pictures off Google and posting it in a birding Facebook group. Spam is an ad, slop is not. With AI, it is now much easier to generate slop.
Both HN itself and prolific HN contributor simonw get shoutouts in the article: “The term [‘slop’] has sprung up in 4chan, Hacker News and YouTube comments, where anonymous posters sometimes project their proficiency in complex subject matter by using in-group language.” “Some have identified Simon Willison, a developer, as an early adopter of the term — but Mr. Willison, who has pushed for the phrase’s adoption, sai…