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

The AI bullshit singularity

successfulsoftware.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–187 of 187 posts

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#181

Post by rocqua »

hermitcrab wrote: post #122
rocqua wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the low background radiation steel, high quality content will still continue to be created. Arguably even at a faster rate with these powerful tools. The proportion will drop ofcourse but that only means curation will become king. With search this curation was difficult, because the value was so low you could only do it profitably if it was completely automatic, and that was difficult. An optimistic take would…

>LLMs will make curation so much more valuable, that it will be done much better. Won't that also mean a return to a world of gatekeepers?

Yes, hopefully they will be good.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#182

Post by asadotzler »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #177
vrighter wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ai detectors can be used to train ais to avoid triggering them. It's a race that cannot be won. ai detection can't, and already doesn't, work.

> ai detection can't, and already doesn't, work. Then how can humans often tell that something is generated by AI? Besides, I wasn't suggesting AI detection as such. I was suggesting crap detection, regardless of how the crap was produced. You probably don't want crappy human-generated content going into your training set, either.

Humans are smarter than machines. We "sense" bullshit in patterns that machines cannot yet intuit. I can tell when something's AI generated. It has a smell or a flavor that's different from human work and it's a variable pattern because, like a southern accent, I can tell if it's Georgia or Alabama, Gemini or Claud, even if very capable machines cannot.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#183

Post by Luisvel »

Not sure why I expected something much more insighful when opening the link. The knowledge base that LLMs have today, is probably enough to derive very high quality content/knowledge. Data and information coming "from outside" won't cease to flow, but will otherwise increase. On the other hand, I see value in somehow indexing/marking human generated content, or at least human supervised/approved content.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#184

Post by asadotzler »

echelon wrote: post #179
__loam wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you studied biology then you ought to know better.

You need to study optimization. I made a perfectly salient analogy. I'm incredibly busy working, and I'm not going to write an essay to bridge the gap for you. All of the pieces are there in front of you. Humans and the free market are an exogenous fitness landscape that is more than suitable to push these systems to their pinnacle.

perfectly, no chance at all for imperfection. entirely sure of himself, he is.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#185

Post by echelon »

asadotzler wrote: post #184
echelon wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to study optimization. I made a perfectly salient analogy. I'm incredibly busy working, and I'm not going to write an essay to bridge the gap for you. All of the pieces are there in front of you. Humans and the free market are an exogenous fitness landscape that is more than suitable to push these systems to their pinnacle.

perfectly, no chance at all for imperfection. entirely sure of himself, he is.

I'm completely fallible. I just don't entertain people calling me a "tech bro" that lazily follow up with "but you should know better". That's not earnest, good faith engagement.

Re: The AI bullshit singularity

#186

Post by __loam »

echelon wrote: post #185
asadotzler wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

perfectly, no chance at all for imperfection. entirely sure of himself, he is.

I'm completely fallible. I just don't entertain people calling me a "tech bro" that lazily follow up with "but you should know better". That's not earnest, good faith engagement.

I assure you I'm being entirely earnest here.
Post reply on HN