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

241–250 of 275 posts

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#241

Post by iliane5 »

int_19h wrote: post #221
iliane5 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Sure, I didn't word it in the best way.

What I meant is that something that is "interesting" and/or "beautiful" is just artistic, such as nature as you pointed out. For it to be art, there has to be intent behind it, otherwise it's just aesthetically pleasing.

My point was that art is more than just something that's aesthetically pleasing.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#243

Post by rcme »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #214
rcme wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As the data set size increases, the average frequency of non-trivial most frequent patterns will go down, and the tail will get much larger. Thus if you had a 1% cutoff, the percentage of the data set hitting this cutoff goes down as the data set size goes up. Take a look at pareto distributions with high alpha to understand the statistics of it. Of course, this is only true if new data is distinct from old data. If…

Hmm I’m still not convinced. Gather training data can be thought of sampling the underlying distribution of the data. In that sense, you’d expect the proportions of things to converge towards the underlying distribution as you gather more data.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#244

Post by int_19h »

iliane5 wrote: post #241
int_19h wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, I didn't word it in the best way. What I meant is that something that is "interesting" and/or "beautiful" is just artistic, such as nature as you pointed out. For it to be art, there has to be intent behind it, otherwise it's just aesthetically pleasing. My point was that art is more than just something that's aesthetically pleasing.

I would say that art is something that is deliberately created to be aesthetically pleasing. If it's done by an AI that was designed with intent to generate such things, I would consider them art, as well.

But if we're talking about definitions, surely what really matters is how most in society understand "art"? Now suppose we went around showing Midjourney-generated pics to random people on the streets and asking them whether it's art or not; how many do you think would say "no", or ask questions about artist's intent before giving an answer?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#245

Post by joshspankit »

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…

There’s nothing saying AIs have to have text input, it’s just the method with the lowest friction of imagination. That’s why books of text have been around for so long.

There are already AIs that take input via image, video, and audio. The AI tech is input agnostic and only requires that someone figures out a way to get the input in.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#246

Post by joshspankit »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #25
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 feel like we are nearing peak "uncurated" content, both for humans and machines. Humans are still grappling with our novel abundance problems. As we move forward, suspect we will see an increase in curation services and AI models will do more with less. You can bootstrap a productive adult human on an almost infintismal slice of the training sets we are using for the current gen of AI, can't imagine future approach…

We’d have to adjust capitalism to deal with the “novel abundance” problems. Most of the drive for novel content/audiences is simply to decide which people get a cut of the revenue (and/or audience).

If we focused on quality and stopped caring about who gets paid for what I suspect that not only would we have better quality overall but we’d also push the boundaries much faster thus making things even more interesting.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#247

Post by joshspankit »

davidkunz wrote: post #182
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.

Popular as defined by who? Because I think we all know that popular as defined by Pagerank, sales, or visits has a lot of issues.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#248

Post by joshspankit »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #62
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…

This isn't an issue, because it's possible to add prose quality and content accuracy scores to training data and train the model to predict those quantities during generation, which would allow you to condition the generation on high prose quality/accuracy. It just requires a small update to the model, and a shit ton of data set annotation time. Likewise, images can be scored for aesthetics and consistency and models…

Then you’d just create the AI equivalent of black-hat SEO.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#249

Post by joshspankit »

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…

The thing that concerns me is that we may end up with a downward trend in accuracy.

If AI writes the bulk of the content, how long will it be before people simply do not put in the work to make sure things are true or put in the work to discover and understand new true things?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#250

Post by iliane5 »

int_19h wrote: post #244
iliane5 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I didn't word it in the best way. What I meant is that something that is "interesting" and/or "beautiful" is just artistic, such as nature as you pointed out. For it to be art, there has to be intent behind it, otherwise it's just aesthetically pleasing. My point was that art is more than just something that's aesthetically pleasing.

I would say that art is something that is deliberately created to be aesthetically pleasing. If it's done by an AI that was designed with intent to generate such things, I would consider them art, as well. But if we're talking about definitions, surely what really matters is how most in society understand "art"? Now suppose we went around showing Midjourney-generated pics to random people on the streets and asking th…

Most would say it's art, which is why these models are so interesting and have had such quick adoption. If you were to reveal that it's AI-made, some would also change their mind or say that it's art but not exactly in the same sense that human-made art is art.

I just think that until AI has real intent, it's a different thing that what we do. Which is not saying anything bad it, quite the contrary.

The definitions will inevitably shift over time, they're already ultimately subjective. If you believe in god, it's not hard to argue that nature is art and quite a lot of people believe in god.

Post reply on HN