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

Certified 100% AI-free organic content

substack.piszek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 275 posts

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#111

Post by CuriouslyC »

rcme wrote: post #98
CuriouslyC wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need to differentiate AI vs Human, just accurate and well written vs not. We'd do that the same way we've scored stuff at scale so far - grad students and crowdsourcing.

The scale of data for these LLMs is well beyond the scale producible via crowdsourcing.

That just isn't true. It's expensive, but entirely doable. Also, it's perfectly normal to perform initial model training on a large data set to capture the statistical properties of language, then perform a second stage of model training on more curated data to cause the model to actually do what you want.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#112

Post by eloisius »

dale_glass wrote: post #15

> Published content will be later used to train subsequent models, and being able to distinguish AI from human input may be very valuable going forward I find this to be a particularly interesting problem in this whole debacle. Could we end up having AI quality trend downwards due to AI ingesting its own old outputs and reinforcing bad habits? I think it's a particular risk for text generation. I've already run into…

> Could we end up having AI quality trend downwards due to AI ingesting its own old outputs and reinforcing bad habits? I think it's a particular risk for text generation.

This is exactly what I don't like about Copilot, maybe even more than the IP ethics of it. If it really succeeds, it's going to have a feedback loop that amplifies its own code suggestions. The same boilerplate-ish kind of code that developers generate over and over will get calcified, even if it's suboptimal or buggy. If we really need robots to help write our code, to me that means we don't yet have expressive enough languages.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#113

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

daveguy wrote: post #68
throwawayhnfpg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling others' work product "content" is pretty offensive.

I disagree. We have called online distribution "content distribution" and the people who contribute stories, videos, and art "content creators" for at least a decade. It's a catch-all generic term for all content that another person would consume via a platform. In a general work setting you're probably not producing content for a platform, but you are certainly producing content for your coworkers and customers. It'…

Agreed. If anything, word 'content' captured a broader array of work output in the mind of general public than work, which conjures up a lot of things, but rarely artistic endeavors. I do dislike using it as a part of describing my own habits, but it would appear that ship has sailed. In both my tech and non-tech circle, stuff they do is content consumption. I am not sure when it became so prevalent.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#114

Post by sillysaurusx »

eloisius wrote: post #112
dale_glass wrote: post #15

> Published content will be later used to train subsequent models, and being able to distinguish AI from human input may be very valuable going forward I find this to be a particularly interesting problem in this whole debacle. Could we end up having AI quality trend downwards due to AI ingesting its own old outputs and reinforcing bad habits? I think it's a particular risk for text generation. I've already run into…

> Could we end up having AI quality trend downwards due to AI ingesting its own old outputs and reinforcing bad habits? I think it's a particular risk for text generation. This is exactly what I don't like about Copilot, maybe even more than the IP ethics of it. If it really succeeds, it's going to have a feedback loop that amplifies its own code suggestions. The same boilerplate-ish kind of code that developers gene…

Devs can use their noggins to check whether copilot’s output is decent or not. It’s not a given that people will use it automatically.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#116

Post by erulabs »

eloff wrote: post #82
shever73 wrote: post #75

This post reminds me of Samuel Butler's novel, Erewhon. "Assume for the sake of argument that conscious beings have existed for some twenty million years: see what strides machines have made in the last thousand! May not the world last twenty million years longer? If so, what will they not in the end become? Is it not safer to nip the mischief in the bud and to forbid them further progress?"

That reminds me of the epilogue to HG Wells Time Traveler: “ He, I know—for the question had been discussed among us long before the Time Machine was made—thought but cheerlessly of the Advancement of Mankind, and saw in the growing pile of civilization only a foolish heaping that must inevitably fall back upon and destroy its makers in the end. If that is so, it remains for us to live as though it were not so.” That…

You’re not wrong but… “I refute it thus”

kicks big pile of old books

“it remains for us to live as though it were not so” is a wonderful line.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#117

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

noduerme wrote: post #23

You know that to certify something as kosher, a rabbi has to be paid to stand there all day next to the kishke stuffing machine or whatever. Makes the consumable a lot more expensive. On the other hand, I see job opportunities. [edit] Actually, just to expand on this a bit, this is effectively an argument for establishing a mark of authenticity that all literate civilizations have always striven to place on their int…

I hate to say it, but it does not sound that far fetched. In some weird ways, tech already feels like magic to a lot of people and people surrounding it are today's wizards and priests willing that power into existence.

In practical sense, as a society, we do need something to separate good from bad. Technopriest cast does sound like a fun job description to me ( which will inevitably be corrupted and result in its own schism ).

Future scares me.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#118

Post by alpos »

This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Content creation is not even close to the same as GMO or processed foods. People are justified in being concerned about how food is made precisely because there are meaningful differences in the nutritional value and trace chemical content in the end products. And that matters because we don't fully understand the role those factors play in long term human health. Created content does not share similar distinctions based on how it was produced.

At the level of our personal experience of a story, image, or sound it does not matter if the content was human generated or even if the stories are real; they either elicit an emotional response or they don't. This is why we can enjoy fiction and art in the first place. It's also why a given piece of art can mean different things to different people.

Deliberately cutting yourself off from the meaning a piece could have for you just because you aren't yet sure that a human produced it is unnecessarily specist and only acts to your own detriment. Should one likewise refuse to engage with works that had assistance from the artist's pets?

With regard to news stories and other informational content, if two stories about the same event are both accurate, timely, informative, and/or insightful, it does not matter if one was written by a human on a typewriter and the other written by a bot after having been prompted by a human. The present state of the art still requires some human editing to hit those marks but we're quickly approaching a time where there will not be any detectable differences.

This idea that people deserve to invent a new category of things to be prejudiced about seems silly and unhelpful to me. Why bother inventing arbitrary distinctions just so people can play favorites and be judgemental about it? People are already free to judge content based on relative merits. That seems like enough to me.

And it's important to account for the fact that the end goal with these tools is that there will be no differences between human and AI generated content. The teams working on these things have already made considerable progress to that end, it's not hard to imagine the next couple of iterations actually achieving that.

So anyone trying to create these arbitrary labels is staring an uphill battle for a fundamentally unhelpful end state. We really don't need to put that kind of energy into reinforcing people's desire to feel superior. We have more than enough elitism/triablism/racism/otherism around as it is.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#119

Post by Out_of_Characte »

idopmstuff wrote: post #100
dazc wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So now you need something like ChatGPT to cut through the noise? I once employed a journalist to write about the pros and cons of wedding insurance. Just to give you a clue how long ago this was, it was a unique article at the time. Many years years later, every article you will read about wedding insurance (there will be many thousands) is around 90% similar in style and content to the one I paid for. I dare say y…

My guess is that ChatGPT is going to solve the SEO spam problem by changing the way we search for things. Instead of searching for webpages that have information about a topic, we're going to ask an AI. It'll tell you what the pros and cons of wedding insurance are, and because eventually it'll have access to your calendar, it'll tailor that answers to the specifics of the fact that you're having a destination weddin…

Regardless of spam, there is another fundamental issue with AI, Accountability. Any text you've read had a real person behind it with real intentions. Malice and greed or honesty and exploration. It would be very difficult to hold an AI accountable for any offence committed on accuracy or honesty. With a person, you can slowly get to the bottom of it and develop a relationship. AI will muddy the waters of people writing and thinking instead of offloading everything to an AI that could do it faster and you'd even evade any responsibility for your text as you could claim that the AI might have inaccuracies and does not reflect your own opinion
Post reply on HN