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

181–190 of 275 posts

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#181

Post by ben_w »

DennisP wrote: post #173
luxcem wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Every discussion on AI take the example of ChatGPT and its inherent flaws but AI-generated content doesn't have to be dull and low quality. One question that bother me is does it really matter? If AI-generated content is on par with Human-made or even better does it m…

I don't think AI has to be low-quality for GP's concern to be valid. Humans get inputs from a large variety of sources, but if an AI's input is just text, then there's the potential for AI's input to mostly consist of its prior output. Iterate this, and its model could gradually diverge from the real world. The equivalent in human society is groupthink, where members of a subgroup get most of their information from t…

Kinda?

AI is often limited in ways we aren't, but it also trivially consumes more than we can in a lifetime.

"Just text" in the case of GPT-3, but also it is trained on a token count exceeding the number of times an average synapse in a human brain will fire in a lifetime.

It can still get biases from the training set; while I'm not sure if "group think" is quite the right phrase, it does seem to "want" everyone to get along even when asking it to create multiple characters engaged in a conflict. (Or perhaps that's just an artefact of it estimating that I want that). Reminds me — in a bad way — of Jules Verne's From The Earth to the Moon.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#182

Post by davidkunz »

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 assume at some point, ChatGPT needs some kind of text ranking. Popular texts are usually correct (content and presentation) and useful, so they should rank higher. At some point, low-quality texts are filtered out. Personally, I don't care if a text is written by a human or a machine as long as it's good.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#183

Post by LesZedCB »

rosywoozlechan wrote: post #179

> do you really want to cry watching a movie that was 100% produced by robots? I've had a lot of fun having ChatGPT write stories for me: I'd ask it make changes, to add a character, add a motivation, etc. I'm just playing around, and it's 100% produced by a robot and I enjoy it. I don't personally mind having an emotional response by a story generated by a "robot". I don't really understand how it being bot generate…

our emotions and desires are mediated by machines literally day in and day out. there is no point whatsoever in making an arbitrary line at a damn movie.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#184

Post by alpos »

gattilorenz wrote: post #166
alpos wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

My answer was mildly tongue in cheek, and I see where you’re going. On the other hand, one of the other posters asked “to generate a parallax effect in Qt/QML. It simply used a QML Elemened with the name Parallax”. Is this an insight, or is this answering “yes, I could” to “could you pass me the salt?”. Maybe the line between the two is a fine one, and I didn’t realize that yet. In general, it feels like copying part…

Saw that, and yea, that's totally a fall-back cop-out type answer. I was pretty much just questioning everyone dismissing the whole category of answers like the R script one.

To me there does seem to be some nuance to here that's worth noticing. Some examples of this type of response are indeed too cheap and can be chalked up to lack of training data or something.

But in other cases it's actually not immediately obvious whether the answer the user got was their fault for not specifying that they are expecting code that works without additional supporting libraries.

A language model can't reasonably be expected to understand an expectation of usability or fitness for purpose in a context the user didn't specify.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#186

Post by harimau777 »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #114
eloisius wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Until managers threaten to fire them for "wasting time" correcting the output.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#187

Post by pkdpic »

Great piece, it seems to have produced a couple of non-ai-augmented thoughts...

1. When ambitious young cooks / farmers etc set out to make a name for themselves in the food industry, I don't get the impression they're rushing towards kosher food development en masse. But I could be wrong.

2. Over the course of my life I've observed (and lived) the response to the dissolution with mass market factory farm food to be a movement towards local, organic, small batch and visibly produced / performed food production.

3. I want to believe a distaste or boredom with ai produced content will lead us all offline and make us more focused on art, music, writing, advice etc produced by people we actually know in real life. Like a farmers market but for everything.

4. If I had to guess though I'd say its more likely in the short term to just increase the popularity of live streaming everything.

I should really have had chatGPT proof read this for me and optimize it for upvotes.

CERTIFIED ORGANIC AI-FREE POST

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#188

Post by jacquesm »

artpi wrote: post #12
jacquesm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silicon!

Thank you, edited - my toddler did not sleep that well tonight :D

Yes, that can eat up your energy like nothing else. Best of luck with that, been there, have a whole bunch of t-shirts ;)

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#190

Post by toss1 »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #114
eloisius wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>>Devs can use their noggins

Can =/= Will

And as also pointed out by others, it not only requires effort, but knowledge, and that knowledge will be systematically degraded the more AI-ish code generation is used.

OTOH, those with super-diligent hacker attitudes will start to learn how to find the flaws in generated code and optimize it, so leveraging the tool, but most will just move on to the next task/ticket as soon as the AIish code passes the unit tests. So, super-leveraging AI-generated code will be rare.

Post reply on HN