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

221–230 of 275 posts

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#221

Post by int_19h »

iliane5 wrote: post #206
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…

>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 ar…

I've seen plenty of images generated by Midjourney and Stable Diffusion that I would describe as "interesting" and/or "beautiful".

For that matter, nature can obviously be both, and it doesn't have intentional design nor vision behind it. So it's clear that it's not a universal requirement.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#222

Post by oceanplexian »

LesZedCB wrote: post #212
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…

but enterprise FizzBuzz is a demonstration that exactly that phenomenon will happen without AI, merely with books, youtube videos, or blogs (the calcification) and cargo culting (the lazy application).

For real, most developers repeatedly copy/paste things they find on the internet without understanding how they work. So the AI isn’t doing anything special that humans don’t already do.

Source: Bitter old SRE who has had to fix many broken software patterns ripped out of StackOverflow and the like.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#223

Post by adamsmith143 »

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…

>a man standing upon a rocky precipice with his back to the viewer; he is gazing out on a landscape covered in a thick sea of fog through which other ridges, trees, and mountains pierce, which stretches out into the distance indefinitely."

Might want to look into better prompt engineering. This is pretty generic and there are better prompts you can use.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#224

Post by int_19h »

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…

Take a look at this.

https://toldby.ai/4kQNd-_tvUG

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#225

Post by int_19h »

toss1 wrote: post #193
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

Quality furniture, especially hand-crafted, is expensive and far from being universally affordable. It's quite likely that the same thing will apply here wrt "artisan hand-crafted content", and thus AI-generated stuff will still constitute the vast majority of what the society consumes.

That said, if it gets good enough that you have to be an expert to tell AI-generated stuff from human-made, does it really matter? The upper classes will always play the silly "look what I can afford!" status games, and these often don't have an utilitarian component to them - something doesn't need to be actually better, it just needs to be recognized as more refined. Well, and cost more.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#226

Post by brookst »

toss1 wrote: post #190
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.

>>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 soo…

> 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.

How is that different than the plague of junior devs we've always had? Devs will get more senior by identifying and correcting issues in AI code rather than code from their peers. Seems OK, like we just got a whole lot more coding capacity.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#227

Post by brookst »

boringg wrote: post #130
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.

That and I bet the generic boilerplate code that co-pilot produces is on average much better than the boiler plate code that the average dev might use. So it removes the lower level work.

It is. There are a lot of problems with copilot, but one magical thing is the way it rewards best practices like thinking through what a function is supposed to do before starting to write it.

If you write a good comment describing name, inputs, outputs, logic, and exceptions, the "generate code from comment" capability is kind of amazing. I'm a terrible, hacky programmer, and it has wholly converted me to documentation-first.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#228

Post by xg15 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #204
wpietri wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, but how would you practically do that?

The most basic technique for estimating trust in an answer today is to check the sources, see who said it, why, who is agreeing with them, etc.

It some AI just spits out an answer without any references, you cannot do that. You either have to blindly trust the answer, which will be dangerous, or you'll have to blindly distrust the answer, at which point the AI will be useless.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#229

Post by brookst »

Out_of_Characte wrote: post #119
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…

Regardless of spam, there is another fundamental issue with AI, Accountability. Any text you've read had a real person behind it with real intentions. Malice and greed or honesty and exploration. It would be very difficult to hold an AI accountable for any offence committed on accuracy or honesty. With a person, you can slowly get to the bottom of it and develop a relationship. AI will muddy the waters of people writ…

What is the difference in accountability and ability to get to the bottom of who's responsible, between AI and someone just hiring an offshore content farm to write crap content?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#230

Post by westurner »

daveguy wrote: post #105
jhbadger wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this could encourage the recreation of the original Yahoo! (If you don't remember, Yahoo! started out not as a search engine in the Google sense but as a collection of human curated links to websites about various topics)

I consider Wikipedia to be a massive curated set of information. It also includes a lot of references and links to additional good information / source materials. Companies try to get spin added and it's usually very well controlled. I worry that a lot of ai generated dreck will seep into Wikipedia, but I am hopeful the moderation will continue to function well.

List of Web directories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_directories ; DMOZ FTW

Distributed Version Control > Work model > Pull Request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_version_control#Pu...

sindresorhus/awesome: https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome#contents

bayandin/awesome-awesomeness: https://github.com/bayandin/awesome-awesomeness

"Help compare Comment and Annotation services: moderation, spam, notifications, configurability" https://github.com/executablebooks/meta/discussions/102

Re: fact checks, schema.org/ClaimReview, W3C Verifiable Claims, W3C Verifiable News & Epistemology: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15529140

W3C Web Annotations could contain (cryptographically-signed (optionally with a W3C DID)) Verifiable Claims; comments with signed Linked Data

Post reply on HN