141–150 of 452 posts
In just the past couple of weeks, I've noticed lots of machine generated cooking recipes. They follow the typical SEO pandering blog format, where there's an unnecessary story about the author's trip somewhere or their child's school play being the inspiration for making this particular recipe, followed by the actual recipe details. The machine generated stories are even more pointless and meandering than what humans…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's not to like? Custard? Good! Jam? Good! Meat? Good!
Thinking of my confusion as a British person, the first time I heard about Americans having “biscuits and gravy”. Or the time an American recipe guide got confused in the other direction about the British traditional Christmas “mince pie” and put minced meat in instead of mincemeat (which, despite the name, is vegetarian).
In just the past couple of weeks, I've noticed lots of machine generated cooking recipes. They follow the typical SEO pandering blog format, where there's an unnecessary story about the author's trip somewhere or their child's school play being the inspiration for making this particular recipe, followed by the actual recipe details. The machine generated stories are even more pointless and meandering than what humans…
I guess I'm in the minority of actually appreciating a lot of the background. And it can't just be SEO given that cookbooks these days are hardly just lists of recipes for the most part and people do apparently buy them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the nearby comment that points out that this is more closely related to editing than to creation as it has recently been understood is correct. Which is not a value judgement per se, but the distinction between those two activities is useful and to me provides a useful lens to understand this change.
On the face of it, that is true. But on a deeper level, AI generation is really just a kind of rapid sketching, and sketching is a practice that goes back millennia. Additionally, it depends on how you are defining "creation" and there have been various artistic movements which "created" art in a manner not dissimilar to AI image generators. The cut-up technique or some Dadaists, for example. I certainly would consid…
But at a lower level sketching is itself a visual interpretive and creative process. And yes what we're talking about is mechanically similar to the cut-up technique, but is that used for "sketching" in the exploratory sense?
I don't know, maybe. My point overall is that these tools aren't "really just" anything. They have similarities and similar applications to many things we've seen and done, yes. But they are fundamentally alien and in important ways are unlike anything else we've done. We should be careful about and aware of the limitations we put on our understanding when we try to interpret them through the lens of what has come before. To some extent we have no other lens, but that doesn't lessen the limitation.
I think in this case the role of the human in the process does have a strong analog to that of an editor. Where you have the ability to initiate and then shape the creation of another entity, but the creation itself is out of your hands. It's not exact, but it may be close enough to be useful, in a way I think comparing it to the cut-up technique is not quite.
* This article neglects that we already in post truth and have been since 2016
* It also mentions it is never a good idea to train on your own data. And yet in post truth there is no such thing as good data unless it is verifiable that a user handed it over themselves. This is neglects the emergent field of using synthetic data on purpose.
What is going to be interesting and I hope pay attention to is that any criticism of Ai is a direct criticism of the norm and the fear of it's continuation accelerated. And yet we are already in the acent, so I would hope instead of expressing fears. We embrace solutions and talk about the future we want.
As no conversation can alter the path we are on now. So do you guys want the forever treadmill? Or UBi?
It is a real problem. The web will soon be full of AI generated bullshit. What might come back as useful tool? Authorship. People actually signing the content and putting their reputation on the line. It still exists obviously (journalism…) but it might need to be standardized and industrialized.
People "sign" their content with their faces on TikTok; it doesn't stop the deluge of complete nonsense that's widely accepted on that platform (much to the frustration of many academics trying to combat it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's a paper that basically shows these LLMs are pretty much tapped out in terms of quality data to train on, not sure if there are any legit architecture improvements in the works to improve results quality but it seems brute force training with more data may be about over - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.04325.pdf As for SEO, Google is going to have to stop being lazy and relying so much on backlinks and domain auth…
An interesting idea but really then aren't you just recreating reddit to an extent. The things people like or that are popular are upvoted because the voter agrees whereas what is unpopular gets down voted regardless of veracity because people like the way it sounds. Beyond that a once popular website or producer says or does something that offends the sensibilities of the internet crowd and then everyone goes and do…
You forgot to add "Because clever posters use bots to give an early upvote boost to their posts, and downvote competing posts" And the more eyeballs on the site, the more things will be manipulated this way by bad actors.
I see parallels here with industrialization and automation in manufacturing and food production. Today, it's self-evident to us as consumers when a product is cheap, low-quality, manufactured garbage from China. In many cases we can choose to spend more and buy a handmade or custom version of the product we want. In the future we might knowingly consume AI-generated cheap text for some purposes and opt for "the real…
> It makes some content cheaper, but what are the side effects? "Content" is already maximally cheap: just copy and paste. AI-generated material – at least, with the current genre of GPT-style predictive text algorithms – doesn't produce original content; it just serves to dilute our global knowledge base with semantic white noise and lossy copies of existing knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I'm in the minority of actually appreciating a lot of the background. And it can't just be SEO given that cookbooks these days are hardly just lists of recipes for the most part and people do apparently buy them.
It's not just SEO it's also a requirement to get copyright protection