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

191–200 of 275 posts

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#191

Post by [deleted] »

alpos wrote: post #136
VeninVidiaVicii wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#192

Post by theiz »

Although I like most of the posting, some thoughts: First of all, we think with all inventions we have excluded human beings from being required. In the end we get more efficient, but we still need workers. The trend though is to go to core business and standard following the industrialisation, I see ai as an opportunity to have more custom and service driven business on an industrial scale though, that is the real promise. This can start with service desk providing service rather then unusable rubbish ad they do now. For the art and text: this industry is relatively new, and came with internet and PowerPoint decks. And yes, probably this will be impacted by ai, but do we really have to be sorry for that? We will have the same page filling nonsense created by ai, that is now created by cheap labour. Look at recipe sites, all kind of crap to make recipes into content so the copyright is somewhat addressed, but nobody reads that anyway. As for all other changes we have had before: there will be some impact on business and life as we know it, but not as much as anyone expected upfront.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#193

Post by toss1 »

pkdpic wrote: post #187

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…

Yes!

I felt reading the article that AI/ML vs "organic" content will become the difference between fine hand-crafted furniture and flat-pack Ikea stuff.

Sure, the flat-pack is better than nothing for a temporary apartment, but it is something to move beyond, not what we want to be stuck with for the rest of our lives and in all situations.

CERTIFIED ORGANIC AI-FREE POST

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#194

Post by xpe »

dsign wrote: post #4

There is so much stuffing for a simple idea that I'm not sure if this piece deserves its own title, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. One thing that I wonder though is how we will draw the line. If I'm writing a piece and do a Google search, and in that way invoke BERT under the hood, is anything that I write afterwards "AI-tainted"? What about the grammar checker? Or the spot removal tool in photoshop or gi…

> ... yes, I would rather read text produced by human beings, not because of its quality ... (snip) ... but just to defend human dominance.

One could make a strong argument that defending moral principles is preferable to preferring the underlying creative force to have a particular biological composition.

As an example, I don't want a system to incentivize humans kept as almost-slaves to retype AI generated content.

How can one tell the difference between all the gradations of "completely" human generated to not?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#195

Post by thenerdhead »

luxcem wrote: post #169
thenerdhead wrote: post #134

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 m…

Do you think your emotional response is related to the external knowledge of who produced the painting or is it only based on the visual impression? We probably can still figure out if a painting is original or AI-generated but I don't think we can much longer as AI improve. The question would be could we feel emotions even if the source material is artificial. I think the answer is yes. Human brain is can easily be…

I guess it is more that AI doesn't struggle to create. Humans go through many emotions in the process of creating art. The outcome isn't as important and the appreciation that artists went through that grueling process and the outcome being what it is I believe is the response I'm trying to express.

So more to the human struggle of the production. At least for me.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#196

Post by mikeg8 »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #67

Not saying there won't be those who do, but caring if something was created by AI instead of a human is about as intelligent as being bothered by your neighbor being a certain nationality, or boycotting a movie because one of the actors has the "wrong" skin color. It matters what we consume, plenty of humans peddle rotten ideas and false narratives. With AI, I'd look into the models and the intentions of those who cr…

I disagree. I think humans have a higher creative ceiling and so the truly moving, life altering pieces of art will always need that human element; I’d rather not waste my time consuming the AI content when it’s peaks are lower.

AI content will be like modern pop songs and super hero movies. They fit a formula and people will still consider them “great” because the bar has been lowered by algorithms and reduced appetite for risk. but deep down we know they are not in the same league as works from The Beatles, Sting, or Martin Scorsese.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#197

Post by rcme »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #174
rcme wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BLOOM isn’t as good as GPT-3 because it doesn’t use as much training data. LLM quality is still data bound [0]. Further limiting data by requiring annotation is not going to work, at least with the current LLM modeling approach. 0: https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/6Fpvch8RR29qLEWNH/chinc...

As the scale of input data goes up linearly, the scale of commonly observed input patterns goes up logarithmically. If we bumped the scale up an order of magnitude in terms of common input tokens, that still means we could annotate the important part of a 150TB text corpus for 125B worth of human annotation. Given that could break the budget of even large corporations, realistically we'd probably train a model to pre…

How do you figure? Let's say a commonly observed input pattern comprises 1% of training data. For a data set of size N, 0.01 * N examples will contain the pattern. If we increase the size to 2N, 0.01 * 2 * N examples will contain the pattern. Why is the growth logarithmic?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#198

Post by icepat »

throwaway589275 wrote: post #175
icepat wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

You do realize that KiwiFarms is named that because of Chris Chan, the person the website was set up to stalk, right?

See: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-webs-...

> That's because you haven't spent much, if any, time on the site. Lurk more.

Zero interest. You don't have eat white lead to know it will give you cancer.

> there is some truly bizarre social phenomena that you can't find documented elsewhere

There's a word for this: stalking. Many of these "social phenomena" are people, and like I said, ones who suffer with mental illness. You're quite literally advocating for, and enabling real-world stalking when you endorse write-ups about these sorts of people.

> apps which literally can be (and have been) used to coordinate harassment

Used for, vs created to enable. There's a difference you're either ignoring or willfully blind to here.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#199

Post by dymk »

harimau777 wrote: post #186
sillysaurusx wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you worry that’s going to be a real problem?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#200

Post by roughly »

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…

Yes! There’s a common problem where people think that an ecosystem is infinite, or at least sufficiently large, when it’s not. We’ve done similar with dumping in the ocean, and now we’ve all got plastics in our blood, and we assumed soil quality was a given over time, too. AI content released into the wild will be consumed by AI; how can it not be? You’ve got a system which can produce content at a rate several orders of magnitude higher a human, of course the content ecosystem will be dominated by AI-generated content, so of course the quality of content generated by AI systems, which rely on non-AI-generated content to train, will go down over time.
Post reply on HN