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

201–210 of 275 posts

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#201

Post by xpe »

Proving content to be AI-free content is fraught. It might be practical in narrow contexts, but I think it will be mostly impractical. It will even be theoretically impossible in many cases.

So, the article's underlying philosophy is "not there yet". It does not adequately address various real world challenges.

1. How is AI-generated content different from algorithms? I'd suggest drawing a line may be nonsensical.

2. What is the precise ethical motivation for wanting to avoid AI-influenced computation? I don't see a compelling case.

Examples:

A. Do we want civil engineers to use optimization software? Yes.

B. Do we like spelling and grammar checkers? Yes.

C. Do we want content generation software to suggest topics and hyperlinks? Yes.

D. Do we want to try out AI music? Yes. And we want to remix it.

E. Do we want to improve our health by making it more accessible and affordable? Yes.

If our goal include protecting human rights, health, dignity, and so on, we better darn well formulate our philosophy and policy goals in a coherent way.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#202

Post by gingerlime »

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…

What about AI-assisted writing? e.g. improving style, grammar, readability, making explanations clearer and better structured? especially for non-native writers this is a challenge and not many can hire an editor or even a proofreader. I wonder if such use gets “penalized” by search engines the same way AI-generated content might?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#203

Post by alpos »

lolinder wrote: post #158
alpos wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems more like misplaced expectations. Someone may have given you the impression that copilot was supposed to do things like that where that expectation seems to not be present for you in relation to ChatGPT. However, as far as I know, the OpenAI team has not made it a goal to have ChatGPT only produce functional code using existing APIs. So I'm not sure we can call that an incorrect answer based on context. If…

If I asked a coworker how to do X in framework Y, giving me the name of a function that should exist but doesn't is not a correct answer. If they told me "well, that's the function that should exist, you should just go submit a PR to framework Y", I would stop asking that coworker for help. The difference I was drawing between ChatGPT and Copilot wasn't that Copilot has functionality ChatGPT doesn't, it's that it has…

I was not suggesting the bot was telling the user to go make a PR to an open source framework but rather that they could create a library that contains those functions if that was the logical thing to do. Which is why I asked if that actually seemed the longer term right thing to do.

While I can easily agree that Copilot is probably the better tool for such questions, it is not clear from the parent comment whether their prompt to ChatGPT was asking to create code to do X or create code to do X using only existing publicly available libraries.

It's not immediately obvious that the bot failed to understand the question or that the answer was an example of the bot failing to understand the programming language. It could easily be that the user had an implied expectation of usability in a context they did not give to the bot.

That scenario is more like you asking a random person on the street, who happens to know Y framework, how to do X in that framework. Your coworker can be expected to get that you are looking for an answer that gets your current task done faster than you would be able to do without their assistance. The person on the street could not reasonably be expected to get that unless you give them that context.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#204

Post by AnimalMuppet »

wpietri wrote: post #110
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…

> Instead of searching for webpages that have information about a topic, we're going to ask an AI. I think this is probably true for some people, the same sort of person who sees something on Facebook and assumes that it's true. [1] But there are quite a lot of people for whom "according to whom?" is the next question after being told something factual. For them, I think search's job is to find relevant sources and g…

> But if they depend on it and feel the real-world impact of a confidently wrong answer, they're going to treat it as a human that's untrustworthy. A blowhard, a liar, a fool.

Maybe that's good. There are glib liars on the net, and not all of them are ChatGPT. If people learn to be skeptical of fine-sounding content on the net, maybe they'll apply it to humans, too.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#205

Post by somenameforme »

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…

Here [1] is a picture of the Mona Lisa. Even if one isn't really into art, you can't help but be drawn into that smile. What did it mean? What was she thinking? What did Leonardo see, and when painting it did he intend to convey what he saw? Or was it a mystery to himself as well, something unbelievably well conveyed in the painting itself?

The reasons these questions are so fun to consider is because we know the answers exist, even if we also know we shall never know them. By contrast had this image just been something output by yet another neural network generator, there would be little to no interest of the same sort, as you would know that anything you infer beyond the most surface level is exactly the same as seeing shapes in the clouds.

[1] - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Mona_Lis...

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#206

Post by iliane5 »

luxcem wrote: post #152
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…

> 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…

>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 matter anymore that an AI generated it? > If an AI had written Mozart's Requiem would it lessen its interest, its beauty?

I think it's about intent. Art is interesting and beautiful to us because there is an undeniable human intent in creating it and a vision behind it.

ChatGPT and DALL-E are pretty cool but I think until AI get it's own intent and goals it's pretty fair to try to separate human art and AI art.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#207

Post by eruci »

everybodyknows wrote: post #154
eruci wrote: post #149

I was thinking about this exact problem a few days ago when I created a site hosting poems that were either 100% AI written, or 100% Human. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34472478 Then I asked people to guess the authorship. Amazingly, only 70% of the time the guess people make is correct. https://random-poem.com/ why : Is this Poem written by or by ? Guess & Click. I'm guessing it will get even harder to tell…

Why is AI introducing a misspelling, one that does not appear to be any sort of deliberate wordplay? https://random-poem.com/Weird "ridicolously"

Good Question. However this is 100% ChatGPT. Perhaps it knows that Weird Al intentionally misspells words in his work, hence it has intentionally introduced this typo. Which makes this type of AI even more awesome.

--edit

.. weird:

I asked ChatGPT if there is a typo in this poem. This is what it responded with:

Me: Does this poem have a typo? https://random-poem.com/weird

ChatGPT: It appears that there is an intentional typo in the first line of the poem "Weird Al, oh Weird Yankovic Al" instead of "Weird Al Yankovic". Yankovic being the surname of the artist, this addition can be seen as a playful and humorous way to refer to the artist, and give the poem a personal touch.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#208

Post by throwaway589275 »

icepat wrote: post #198
throwaway589275 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

[flagged]

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#209

Post by mikewarot »

spacephysics wrote: post #161
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.

I think many developers of today agree. Todays programmers can see copilot output and probably think “well that’s not optimal”. Fast forward five years, new CS grads are using Copilot 3.0, and are used to specific auto-completes that copilot gives for certain tasks, as they may have never needed to go beyond some of the more basic suggestions. It “feels” like an older programmer seeing a younger web dev and going “yo…

>It “feels” like an older programmer seeing a younger web dev and going “you’re wasting MB of memory!”

I crammed a gigabyte of ASCII into a string in FreePascal, it was glorious!

Waste all the MB you want!

(I'm 59)

Post reply on HN