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

31–40 of 275 posts

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#31

Post by tluyben2 »

AuthorizedCust wrote: post #16
psychoslave wrote: post #14

>I don’t think you can stop technological progress. Humanity moves in the direction of better and more sophisticated tools to make life more convenient, and it will be more convenient to introduce more and more AI-produced content into the culture. That is a rather boldly positive perspective. History show us how great technologies can come and go and is never distributed uniformly. Think sewers and drainage systems…

> History show us how great technologies can come and go… I don’t see generative AI ever going.

It will just get normal.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#32

Post by dopylitty »

The long term impact of the ease of generating low nutrition digital content using language models may be that people put down their devices and return to the real world. We’re already far down that path with the existing internet where most content is generated for SEO.

Anything you’re consuming on the internet or even on a TV may just be random noise generated by some model so why waste your precious time consuming it?

On the flip side why waste your time producing content if it’s going to be drowned in a sea of garbage mashed together by some language model?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#34

Post by icepat »

throwaway589275 wrote: post #28

It's not clear that people actually care about and want AI-free OC, at least if you look at what kind of content is being consumed. Right now Google search seems to prioritize non-organic content, with search results often being a stream of blogspam and reddit/quora shill/astroturf crap that if not AI-generated, is close enough in terms of tone, accuracy, and originality, that it might as well be. Meanwhile you never…

Google not prioritizing 4chan and KiwiFarms is a terrible example "not wanting organic content". They're not just "organic content", they're cesspools of the worst kind of organic content. 4chan is notoriously filled with questionable to outright illegal content/activity, and KiwiFarms is just a website to organize doxxing and online harassment. I don't understand why that's your standard for "organic content". I would have to heavily question your activity if you're being thwarted by a lack of those sites in your search results. I'm personally very happy with 4chan links not showing up in search results.

I also think you're misunderstanding how Google prioritizes content. It's not showing the content people want, as much as content that's optimized with SEO to look appealing.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#35

Post by empyrrhicist »

messe wrote: post #30
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…

Hmm, forgetting natural language for a moment and instead considering programming languages: it’s pretty easy to generate nonsense but semi-plausible looking ASTs without the help of AI. Could this be used to attack GitHub’s copilot? Step 1. Release a tool that generates nonsense code across a thousand repositories, and allow anybody to publish crap to GitHub. Step 2. Copilot trains on those nonsensical repositories…

You'd probably also have to botspam stars, issues, pull requests.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#36

Post by ceejayoz »

throwaway589275 wrote: post #28

It's not clear that people actually care about and want AI-free OC, at least if you look at what kind of content is being consumed. Right now Google search seems to prioritize non-organic content, with search results often being a stream of blogspam and reddit/quora shill/astroturf crap that if not AI-generated, is close enough in terms of tone, accuracy, and originality, that it might as well be. Meanwhile you never…

Good OC > Good AI content > diarrhea > brain cancer > kiwifarms

Google isn't prioritizing AI content, it's just losing the battle against it. Not the same thing.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#37

Post by photochemsyn »

The organic analogy to AI refers to locally-produced crops grown with natural fertilizers and pre-industrial pest and weed control strategies, as an antitode to industrial-fertilizer soaked, herbicide-and-pesticide drenched, antibiotic-and-synthetic-hormone laden, globally-transported heavily-processed foodstuffs.

While this does sound good to most people, it's always worth remembering that Old South plantations produced nothing but 100% organic cotton, despite their atrocious practices of human slavery.

If we include this perspective, AI has some potentially extremely positive potential. One of the most promising trends in agriculture is the adoption of AI to the problem of weed and pest control, as well as fertilizer use. AI robots crawling over fields can use image recognition to identify weeds (and kill them with IR lasers) as well as pest infestations in their early stages. Application of fertilizer to individual plants on as as-needed basis (rather than just dumping large volumes on the entire field) also becomes possible. This can be done far faster and more efficiently than by human laborers walking up and down rows of crops, weeding by hand. Potentially, this could make organic-style agriculture as cost-effective as the industrial variety.

Sure, this means fewer field labor agricultural jobs - which are pretty tough, backbreaking jobs by any measure. Similar arguments apply to a lot of the drudgery in creative and artistic endeavors.

Of course, AI could also replace most corporate board positions, and a lot of upper management as well, and hey, why not the shareholders and investors too? Are they of any more value to the operation of a business than the replaceable grunt workers are?

Let's make the world's smartest AI and have it make decisions about how capital should be allocated to promising startups, removing fallible humans from the loop. Resource optimization on steroids!

Yes, I read too much science fiction. See William Gibson, Iain M. Banks, Hannu Rajaniemi, and Adrian Tchaikovsky for examples of what can go wrong (and maybe right).

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#38

Post by rgrieselhuber »

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 if companies and site owners wished to self-certify their site as organic with something like an /ai-free.txt.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#40

Post by quchen »

remedan wrote: post #29
Veuxdo wrote: post #2

"AI-free" is pretty clear. "Organic" is much more subjective. The same applies to Organic food, if I'm not mistaken.

Is "AI-free" clear? If I google something during the making of my project, is the project AI free? What if I type on a phone keyboard with autosuggestions? There is machine learning involved in all kinds of stuff and AI is a pretty general term.

Edwin Brady often talks about his (digital) lab assistant. I think that’s a good mental image: an AI assistant is what we’ve used so far and I think is fine. They help us bounce ideas back and forth (e.g. searching) and correct typical mistakes (typos, type errors in Edwin’s case). But as soon as they’re running the lab and we become the assistant, I think that’s where most people would draw the line.
Post reply on HN