Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 433 posts

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#361

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

notyourwork wrote: post #344
spaceribs wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't, because human trust can barely scale past 100 people, much less the entire internet. I think humans will recede into the tribes we were always built to understand and be a part of. Private group chats are far more popular and ubiquitous than we give them credit for, and I only see that accelerating in this climate.

Private chats which effectively become echo chambers further dividing an already divided society is what I foresee.

on the contrary.

Good fences make for good neighbors.

Its not a coincidence that the printing press brought devastating war to europe in the form of the wars of reformation [1] .

The internet is another real tool for knocking down fences for free, by anyone. Its only a matter of time when there's pushback by angry fence-owners.

We absolutely need less friction and more of minding our own business and focusing on our own back yard instead of chiming in on someone thousands of miles away.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for the free flow of information, but what people (HN crowd?) don't understand is that a significant subgroup of humans cannot tolerate relentless change or challenges to their worldview for too long.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion#Defi...

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#363

Post by cortesoft »

walterbell wrote: post #319

Spam (created by humans) evolves. So do humans. If Google prioritizes AI slop, Google will be deprioritized.

You don't think the AI content creators will target the next search engine if Google fails? I don't think Google WANTS to prioritize AI slop, they just are unable to not do it.

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#364

Post by water-data-dude »

lsy wrote: post #332

This was probably always the likely outcome of an internet economy that revolves around the production and monetization of "content". We started by putting advertisements on existing content, then moved to social networking and social media, which was essentially an engine for crowdsourcing the production of greater amounts of content against which to show advertisements. Because money is up for grabs, producing cont…

I’ve been idly wondering about something like the Web of Trust. A social network where users vouch for one another's actually-a-real-humanness. There could be setting that let you adjust the size of the network you see (people you’ve actually met? One remove from that?)

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#366

Post by stonethrowaway »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #361
notyourwork wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private chats which effectively become echo chambers further dividing an already divided society is what I foresee.

on the contrary. Good fences make for good neighbors. Its not a coincidence that the printing press brought devastating war to europe in the form of the wars of reformation [1] . The internet is another real tool for knocking down fences for free, by anyone. Its only a matter of time when there's pushback by angry fence-owners. We absolutely need less friction and more of minding our own business and focusing on our…

See also the importing of millions of people whose worldviews we cannot reconcile with ours.

It’s not just the HN crowd.

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#367

Post by kirubakaran »

Analemma_ wrote: post #352
ivanjermakov wrote: post #323

It's is more about Google search than it is about the internet. There was a period in the past when human spam was a problem that was not trivial to solve. As always, modern problems require modern solutions.

I don’t think “better spam detection technology” can help out of this even in theory. The whole point of LLMs is that, by construction, they produce content which is statistically indistinguishable from human text. Almost by definition, any statistical test to distinguish LLM text from human text could be turned around to make better LLMs.

So statistical test won't work, and we need something else

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#368

Post by dansiemens »

water-data-dude wrote: post #364
lsy wrote: post #332

This was probably always the likely outcome of an internet economy that revolves around the production and monetization of "content". We started by putting advertisements on existing content, then moved to social networking and social media, which was essentially an engine for crowdsourcing the production of greater amounts of content against which to show advertisements. Because money is up for grabs, producing cont…

I’ve been idly wondering about something like the Web of Trust. A social network where users vouch for one another's actually-a-real-humanness. There could be setting that let you adjust the size of the network you see (people you’ve actually met? One remove from that?)

What you’re describing is early Facebook. Your feed was only from your 1st degree connections. Content mattered because it was from people you cared about (and inherently knew, because users wouldn’t accept friend requests from people they didn't know). It really was the pinnacle of social media.

Re: Nearly all of the Google images results for "baby peacock" are AI generated

#370

Post by throw10920 »

lsy wrote: post #332

This was probably always the likely outcome of an internet economy that revolves around the production and monetization of "content". We started by putting advertisements on existing content, then moved to social networking and social media, which was essentially an engine for crowdsourcing the production of greater amounts of content against which to show advertisements. Because money is up for grabs, producing cont…

> But I'm not sure there is a business model there at the scale the industry demands.

This is the kicker. When unfettered by regulation or leaders/workers with morals, most industries would rather avoid human curation because they want to sell you something. Amazon sellers would rather you not see or not trust the ratings because they want you to buy their stuff without knowing it's going to fall apart. Amazon makes a profit off it, so they somewhat encourage it (although they also have the dual pressure of knowing that if people distrust Amazon enough they'll leave and go somewhere else, so they have to keep customers somewhat happy).

No, curation has to come from individuals, grassroots organizations, and/or companies without a financial interest in the things being curated - and it has to revolve around a web of trust, because as Reddit has shown, anonymous curation doesn't work once the borderline criminal content marketers find the forum and exploit it.

> The only way out I can see is something along the lines of human curation of human-generated content.

...however, unfortunately, curation doesn't solve the problem of people desiring AI-generated content. That's a much harder problem. Even verifying that something was created by a human in the first place is hard. I don't want to think about that. I'm just going to focus on curation because that's easier and it's also incredibly important for the lowering quality of physical goods as well.

Post reply on HN