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

251–260 of 275 posts

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#251

Post by rgrieselhuber »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #237
xg15 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 usele…

Step 1: No sources? No trust. Step 2: Sources? Check them. Do they exist at all? Do they say what the thing in question says they say? Step 3: Check for other (non-cited) sources that confirm what the cited sources say. Check for other sources that dispute it.

Also, who funded the sources and what biases do they have?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#252

Post by DennisP »

joshspankit wrote: post #245
DennisP wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but the issue isn't specific to text. It works for anything that AI also produces.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#253

Post by i_like_apis »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #233
i_like_apis wrote: post #189

The best part is the “gluten free” anti AI crowd will be left in the dust. They may think they’re being classy snobs but being against AI is going to be tantamount to saying you eat crayons and don’t read well.

Gluten intolerance is a legitimate digestive issue. I suggest picking a different descriptor to make your point.

I think it’s pretty on-point though, because while Celiac disease is real (gluten intolerance), most people saying no to gluten don’t have it. The notion of gluten “sensitivity” or allergy is debated by medical science to say the least. It’s largely hypochondria, mass hysteria, and often a trendy meme for snobs and hipsters.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#254

Post by smrtinsert »

eloisius wrote: post #112
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…

> 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…

Not really the case. I reject maybe 90٪ of copilot suggestions. If they leverage that I'm sure it will improve

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#255

Post by brookst »

Cyberdog wrote: post #231
brookst wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 documentat…

The only Copilot-type system I'd consider using is one that did the opposite - generated comments from my code, so my lazy butt doesn't have to write them manually.

I hear ya, but I’m a PM so I’m looking at it as spec-to-code. Though I would love to see code-to-comments, especially really opinionated comments.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#256

Post by jjtheblunt »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #213
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…

> 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 just had my eyes opened reading that, because humans also do exactly that, inadvertently.

another afterthought : does that mean humans are artificial AI?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#257

Post by CuriouslyC »

rcme wrote: post #243
CuriouslyC wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That would be true if we were sampling from the underlying distribution in an unbiased and balanced way from the beginning. Instead data is generated and incorporated one set at a time, and each set is biased. Jargon and terms vary, but the language plumbing is the same - new sets bolster common phrases/idioms and lengthen the tail with specific tokens.

Keep in mind though, language isn't a stationary process.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#258

Post by trompetenaccoun »

somenameforme wrote: post #205
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 ans…

Being into art, I think your example perfectly demonstrates why we can't get AI soon enough. There is no good reason for thousands of tourists to crowd around the Mona Lisa on a daily basis. They don't even understand what they're looking at.

Would people pay millions of dollars for an AI generated black square NFT? Maybe some would too, it really shows the retardation of the entire space. With the mainstream it's not even about art and craftsmanship but about big names and make-believe. And that's not just art but all fields including science to a degree. When we get AI, hopefully more people are going to start focusing on substance instead of marketing and illusion.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#259

Post by selfhoster11 »

i_like_apis wrote: post #253
selfhoster11 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gluten intolerance is a legitimate digestive issue. I suggest picking a different descriptor to make your point.

I think it’s pretty on-point though, because while Celiac disease is real (gluten intolerance), most people saying no to gluten don’t have it. The notion of gluten “sensitivity” or allergy is debated by medical science to say the least. It’s largely hypochondria, mass hysteria, and often a trendy meme for snobs and hipsters.

Respectfully, you’re wrong. Celiac is not the only kind of gluten intolerance, and I’m speaking from personal experience. I eat gluten, and I get severe issues with digestion. I stop eating gluten, the issues magically disappear. I thought my issues were just “normal” until a couple of years ago, and that gluten intolerance was a BS made-up thing. I was wrong on both counts.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#260

Post by mdrzn »

rosywoozlechan wrote: post #179

> do you really want to cry watching a movie that was 100% produced by robots? I've had a lot of fun having ChatGPT write stories for me: I'd ask it make changes, to add a character, add a motivation, etc. I'm just playing around, and it's 100% produced by a robot and I enjoy it. I don't personally mind having an emotional response by a story generated by a "robot". I don't really understand how it being bot generate…

> do you really want to cry watching a movie that was 100% produced by robots?

I didn't really understand this line either. I guess my answer is yes? Who cares?

Post reply on HN