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

You Can't Opt-Out of A.I. Online

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 105 posts

Re: You Can't Opt-Out of A.I. Online

#41

Post by rafram »

rpgwaiter wrote: post #38
chrisjj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 4. I do not click or read any articles with AI-generated images or text. How can you possibly know the articles you read have no AI-generated images or text?

Not OP, but it’s extremely easy to tell if an article uses AI images. Are there vague images padding the article for SEO purposes? If so, is there attribution to an artist? If they contain images and don’t attribute, I avoid the website. Either they use AI to make SEO bait, or they steal artwork. I’ll avoid in either case. AI text is much harder to detect, not sure of a good way to avoid it at the moment.

Lack of attribution doesn’t tell you anything. If they’re licensing their images from a stock photo site, attribution likely isn’t required.

Re: You Can't Opt-Out of A.I. Online

#42

Post by gruez »

rpgwaiter wrote: post #38
chrisjj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 4. I do not click or read any articles with AI-generated images or text. How can you possibly know the articles you read have no AI-generated images or text?

Not OP, but it’s extremely easy to tell if an article uses AI images. Are there vague images padding the article for SEO purposes? If so, is there attribution to an artist? If they contain images and don’t attribute, I avoid the website. Either they use AI to make SEO bait, or they steal artwork. I’ll avoid in either case. AI text is much harder to detect, not sure of a good way to avoid it at the moment.

>If so, is there attribution to an artist? If they contain images and don’t attribute, I avoid the website. Either they use AI to make SEO bait, or they steal artwork. I’ll avoid in either case.

I'm not sure why you think every use of AI generated images is "SEO bait". I'm sure some (most?) are, but it's perfectly plausible a well written article uses AI art in place of a generic image off unsplash or whatever.

Re: You Can't Opt-Out of A.I. Online

#43

Post by masfuerte »

moron4hire wrote: post #33
ryandv wrote: post #8

This is just the practice of invasive data harvesting taken to its natural conclusion, which any tech savvy user or computer geek brought up in the pre-postmodern social media era of the Internet (before Facebook) could have seen coming decades in advance. The only winning move here is not to play, accepting the unfortunate consequence that you will need to "limit the reach of your profile just to avoid participating…

It's not possible to not play. Even if I chose to avoid social media, my kids' school insists everyone interest with their teachers through some crappy branded app. Read the TOS. Didn't like what I saw. Told them I didn't want to install an app on my phone. Asked nicely if there was some way I could participate without it. They acted like I beat my kids.

Organisations insist that I interact with them using an app. I show them my Nokia feature phone and they find an alternative.

Really, this is more damning. They could accommodate you but they don't because you could submit to their bullshit and choose not to.

Maybe the answer is to carry a dead feature phone to show to them. Like a talisman to ward off their evil.

Re: You Can't Opt-Out of A.I. Online

#44

Post by rpgwaiter »

rafram wrote: post #41
rpgwaiter wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but it’s extremely easy to tell if an article uses AI images. Are there vague images padding the article for SEO purposes? If so, is there attribution to an artist? If they contain images and don’t attribute, I avoid the website. Either they use AI to make SEO bait, or they steal artwork. I’ll avoid in either case. AI text is much harder to detect, not sure of a good way to avoid it at the moment.

Lack of attribution doesn’t tell you anything. If they’re licensing their images from a stock photo site, attribution likely isn’t required.

Hadn’t thought about that, you make a good point. However in that case the author didn’t feel it necessary to explicitly say the image is not AI generated, which means they likely share very different views about AI artwork and I’ll probably avoid.

Even without that caveat, if they feel it beneficial to pay for stock photos for an article I’m probably good giving it a pass. Most major stock media companies are buying fully into AI generation anyways, and I can’t think of too many cases where stock images really add anything to an article aside from adding to the page size by an order of magnitude.

Re: You Can't Opt-Out of A.I. Online

#45

Post by dspillett »

jabroni_salad wrote: post #13
ishtanbul wrote: post #2

The outcome is that spaces which are prone to AI slop and spam will wither and lose real users, eventually collapsing on themselves. For the social media platforms, good riddance

When I pop open facebook and see some page has somehow gotten onto my feed with an AI generated children's science fair project I always notice that it has 60k+ likes. To me it says that the stuff is indistinguishable from real for enough people that discerning users are just helplessly along for the ride on every platform. The article purports that the reason slop is here to stay is because people like it. The next…

> notice that it has 60k+ likes. To me it says that the stuff is indistinguishable from real for enough people

Or that buying likes from bot farms is incredibly cheap.

Re: You Can't Opt-Out of A.I. Online

#46

Post by theGnuMe »

_heimdall wrote: post #34
moron4hire wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not possible to not play. Even if I chose to avoid social media, my kids' school insists everyone interest with their teachers through some crappy branded app. Read the TOS. Didn't like what I saw. Told them I didn't want to install an app on my phone. Asked nicely if there was some way I could participate without it. They acted like I beat my kids.

How do schools actually manage requiring this? Is it required that all students have access to smartphones, tablets, the internet in general, etc? If a student doesn't have a device to install the crappy branded app on, what does the school do? I don't have kids yet though that time is likely coming, this goes firmly on the growing list of reasons why we'd choose to homeschool.

When you homeschool you will likely buy said crappy app (or another one) to help you actually school your kids...

Re: You Can't Opt-Out of A.I. Online

#47

Post by SirMaster »

moron4hire wrote: post #33
ryandv wrote: post #8

This is just the practice of invasive data harvesting taken to its natural conclusion, which any tech savvy user or computer geek brought up in the pre-postmodern social media era of the Internet (before Facebook) could have seen coming decades in advance. The only winning move here is not to play, accepting the unfortunate consequence that you will need to "limit the reach of your profile just to avoid participating…

It's not possible to not play. Even if I chose to avoid social media, my kids' school insists everyone interest with their teachers through some crappy branded app. Read the TOS. Didn't like what I saw. Told them I didn't want to install an app on my phone. Asked nicely if there was some way I could participate without it. They acted like I beat my kids.

Sure it is, you can homeschool for example.

Re: You Can't Opt-Out of A.I. Online

#48

Post by recursive »

rpgwaiter wrote: post #23
joe_the_user wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why having an LLM use my output in particular is problematic - I'm pretty sure OpenAI trained GPT-3+ on every single bit of data they could find, so they probably included a bunch of stuff I've written here already (though it is minuscule fraction of their vast corpus of course). Losing anonymity is something I'd be much more worried about overall (not that it's entirely separate I don't think it's the s…

There’s many good reasons, but for me it’s that I don’t want companies profiting off of my posts that have no intention of profit sharing. When I make a Youtube video and companies run ads on it, I get a piece of that pie (assuming I meet the requirements, etc.). That same video fed into Gemini so google can charge for AI video generation? I get nothing, Google makes bank. As a user I can pay for YouTube premium and…

> for me it’s that I don’t want companies profiting off of my posts that have no intention of profit sharing

I won't argue with your position, but most people would be hurting themselves more than they would hurt the companies, even in absolute terms.

Re: You Can't Opt-Out of A.I. Online

#49

Post by rpgwaiter »

gruez wrote: post #40
rpgwaiter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s many good reasons, but for me it’s that I don’t want companies profiting off of my posts that have no intention of profit sharing. When I make a Youtube video and companies run ads on it, I get a piece of that pie (assuming I meet the requirements, etc.). That same video fed into Gemini so google can charge for AI video generation? I get nothing, Google makes bank. As a user I can pay for YouTube premium and…

>That same video fed into Gemini so google can charge for AI video generation? I get nothing, Google makes bank. How do you feel about commenting on this site for free, which probably provides some benefit to ycombinator?

I would happily pay a reasonable monthly subscription to this site or similar. No problem paying for a service that treats users with respect. Also using this site has taught me all sorts of things that likely made me some money indirectly. It seems mutually beneficial without selling my data or paying for HN.

That said, if YC made a deal with some tech company to give them the firehose of data to train AI, I’d probably stop using HN. I stopped using reddit for a similar reason despite being a very frequent redditor with like 60k karma. I know it’s all pretty open and getting fed into many different LLMs anyways, but thats not necessarily YC’s fault.

My ideal would be strong government regulations regarding AI training, requiring explicit opt-in that isn’t buried in a ToS or EULA. Ideally companies would require a “non-AI feeding” version of their website to legally run in my country.

I can’t imagine a scenario where this happens in the current system, but I sure can fantasize.

Re: You Can't Opt-Out of A.I. Online

#50

Post by gruez »

rpgwaiter wrote: post #49
gruez wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That same video fed into Gemini so google can charge for AI video generation? I get nothing, Google makes bank. How do you feel about commenting on this site for free, which probably provides some benefit to ycombinator?

I would happily pay a reasonable monthly subscription to this site or similar. No problem paying for a service that treats users with respect. Also using this site has taught me all sorts of things that likely made me some money indirectly. It seems mutually beneficial without selling my data or paying for HN. That said, if YC made a deal with some tech company to give them the firehose of data to train AI, I’d proba…

Right, but are you objecting to AI training because companies are benefiting while you're being uncompensated, or think AI training is fundamentally bad? Your previous comment suggests it's the former, but by the same logic you shouldn't comment online either, because that also benefits the company and is uncompensated.
Post reply on HN