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

131–140 of 275 posts

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#131

Post by specproc »

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…

I've already had the SEO guy at work ask me how we might go about influencing model output. What a time to be alive.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#132

Post by idopmstuff »

Out_of_Characte wrote: post #119
idopmstuff wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 writ…

I don't think what you're saying really applies to SEO articles, though. If you don't get wedding insurance because you read some SEO article that recommends against it, even if the advice is clearly bad, can you really hold them accountable? It's tough for me to imagine you'd win that lawsuit.

> With a person, you can slowly get to the bottom of it and develop a relationship.

With this kind of content (with most content on the internet, I'd argue), you really can't.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#133

Post by alpos »

gattilorenz wrote: post #84
jhbadger wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've already run into scenarios where ChatGPT generated code that looked perfectly plausible, except for that the actual API used didn't really exist. Yes! I remember generating a seemingly reasonable R script except that the library that it called to do most of the work didn't exist! It was like code from an alternate dimension!

It’s as if ChatGPT was behaving like a language model with no real connection or understanding of R… hmmmmm…

This take strikes me as a little off. Programming languages are language. Unlike natural languages they are also based on context-free grammar. So an understanding of programming languages should actually be easier for even a general language model to incorporate than natural languages.

We can expect a bot like this to not really get context clues in natural language, although they seem to be getting better at that, but context is not necessary to have a true and functional understanding of a programming language. That was the point of creating such languages.

Using an API that doesn't exist but logically should once the use cases are demonstrated is not an example of lacking understanding, it is an example of advanced insight. A human might have invented the necessary functions inline with the rest of the project but if they are expressing functionality that is commonly applicable, then a common API for those functions is what the humans would eventually converge upon to clean up the code from the initial inline implementation, making it more consistent and readable.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#134

Post by thenerdhead »

The point about emotional response is good.

I'm not sure how to best describe it, but every time I interact with AI, there is very little emotional response from it. Rather it's a "good enough" response rather than a sense of awe or horror.

I've been experimenting with writing recently and wanting to provide some AI imagery to match the emotions I'm expressing. A painting like "Wanderer above the Sea of Fog" evokes many emotions. But when I use the same description such as:

"a man standing upon a rocky precipice with his back to the viewer; he is gazing out on a landscape covered in a thick sea of fog through which other ridges, trees, and mountains pierce, which stretches out into the distance indefinitely."

I get the store-brand version that doesn't invoke any emotion. It is "good enough" to get the point across, but lacking the response. Similar to the countless recreations of the Mona Lisa, there is just something about organic perfection. I'm sure AI will get there one day, but who knows if we will react to it in this sense of wonderment.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#135

Post by icepat »

throwaway589275 wrote: post #58
icepat wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google not prioritizing 4chan and KiwiFarms is a terrible example "not wanting organic content". They're not just "organic content", they're cesspools of the worst kind of organic content. 4chan is notoriously filled with questionable to outright illegal content/activity, and KiwiFarms is just a website to organize doxxing and online harassment. I don't understand why that's your standard for "organic content". I wou…

> KiwiFarms is just a website to organize doxxing and online harassment KF is a gossip site, like Lipstick Alley or DataLounge, but with a focus on e-celebs and internet phenomena. I go there whenever I want to get the dirt (ie. truth) about e-celebs or some weird internet trend or subculture. Its users literally just passively document and discuss this stuff, and there's a policy (and ethos) of "no touch." You and o…

The sorts of people being "documented" on KiwiFarms are not celebrities. They're usually vulnerable people with some sort of mental illness who are struggling. And I don't buy for a moment the "no touch" policy. Just because you can't use a specific website to harass someone, does not mean you can't use the information on the website to harass them off-platform. This is a bad take. There's a major difference between journalism, tabloid journalism (which I also consider worthless and wrong), and stalking vulnerable people on the internet. Or as you call the latter, "documenting".

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#136

Post by alpos »

VeninVidiaVicii wrote: post #85
jhbadger wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've already run into scenarios where ChatGPT generated code that looked perfectly plausible, except for that the actual API used didn't really exist. Yes! I remember generating a seemingly reasonable R script except that the library that it called to do most of the work didn't exist! It was like code from an alternate dimension!

Yeah, a few times when I ask for a reference to something outlandish, it generates a perfectly realistic looking paper alongside a doi link, that’s completely made up. Both the paper and the link link do not exist!

I have to wonder, were any of the the hypothesis' in those papers plausibly viable areas of inquiry?

Perhaps it could be useful if they train the bot to identify cases like this and state that no such references exist but also provide a thesis or suggest a line of study that would produce such a reference.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#137

Post by shadowgovt »

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…

There will likely be selective pressure from human interaction with the data to curate good content above bad.

After all, we had the issue of millions of auto-generated bad pages in the web 1.0 SEO days. Search engines addressed it by figuring out how to rely more heavily on human behavior signals as an indication of value of data.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#138

Post by user3939382 »

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…

I brought this exact issue up recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34252938

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#139

Post by megous »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #38
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…

As someone in SEO, I've been pretty disgusted by the desire for site owners to want to use AI-generated content. There are various opinions on this, of course, but I got into SEO out of interest in the "organic web" vs. everything being driven by ads. Love the idea of having AI-Free declarations of content as it could / should help to differentiate organic content from generated content. It would be very interesting…

Sure, let's just ignore the benefits of AI and pretend like it doesn't exist. That sounds like a great plan.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#140

Post by TuringTest »

> How much of it will be being certain that you are reading something generated by human before you're willing to commit to having an emotional response, even if the output is identical, right? ... Interesting. Like, do you really want to cry watching a movie that was 100% produced by robots?Maybe not

I certainly wouldn't mind. AI-generated content is a statistical summarization of knowledge produced by infinite humans randomly typing on typewriters, after all...

Post reply on HN