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

51–60 of 275 posts

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#51

Post by jhbadger »

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've already run into scenarios where ChatGPT generated code that looked perfectly plausible, except for that the actual API used didn't really exist.

Yes! I remember generating a seemingly reasonable R script except that the library that it called to do most of the work didn't exist! It was like code from an alternate dimension!

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#52

Post by rgrieselhuber »

noduerme wrote: post #50
password11 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but I got into SEO out of interest in the "organic web" vs. everything being driven by ads. If the owner of an SEO site wants to use AI for "content generation", doesn't that mean they didn't care about the human-generated content in the first place? Seems like a choice between garbage and slightly more expensive garbage. What is interesting or organic about that? Back in the day, people used to put things on their…

I read this more as meaning that they work for a legitimate company or two that is trying to organically improve their search results without stooping to nasty tricks

Yes, that is the intent

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#53

Post by noduerme »

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…

>> a downwards trend in quality

Have you googled for reviews on toaster ovens recently?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#54

Post by yellow_lead »

d1algo wrote: post #48

FWIW I would like to shamelessly plug https://www.humanproved.com here . The idea is that a human needs to pledge that their content is human generated to get a unique badge , that they can display alongside their content along with a url. Someone can use the url to verify the time stamp that the badge was issued.

Of course, a human would never lie about that.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#55

Post by jhbadger »

westurner wrote: post #46
dale_glass wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the point. There's lots of old content out there that won't get tagged, so lacking the tag doesn't mean it's AI generated. Meanwhile people abusing AI for profit (eg, generating AI driven blogs to stick ads on them) wouldn't want to tag their sites in a way that might get them ignored. And what are the consequences for lying?

Does use of a search engine violate the "No AI" covenant with oneself? Variation on the Turning Test: prove that it's not a human claiming to be a computer. Modeling premises and Meta-analysis are again necessary elements for critical reasoning about Sources and Methods and superpositions of Ignorance and Malice.

Maybe this could encourage the recreation of the original Yahoo! (If you don't remember, Yahoo! started out not as a search engine in the Google sense but as a collection of human curated links to websites about various topics)

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#56

Post by trompetenaccoun »

d1algo wrote: post #48

FWIW I would like to shamelessly plug https://www.humanproved.com here . The idea is that a human needs to pledge that their content is human generated to get a unique badge , that they can display alongside their content along with a url. Someone can use the url to verify the time stamp that the badge was issued.

How does it prevent bots from getting a badge? Is solving a CAPTCHA all they have to do?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#57

Post by PartiallyTyped »

jhbadger wrote: post #51
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've already run into scenarios where ChatGPT generated code that looked perfectly plausible, except for that the actual API used didn't really exist. Yes! I remember generating a seemingly reasonable R script except that the library that it called to do most of the work didn't exist! It was like code from an alternate dimension!

I have had the same experience with Typescript and Python.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#58

Post by throwaway589275 »

icepat wrote: post #34
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 wou…

> KiwiFarms is just a website to organize doxxing and online harassment

KF is a gossip site, like Lipstick Alley or DataLounge, but with a focus on e-celebs and internet phenomena. I go there whenever I want to get the dirt (ie. truth) about e-celebs or some weird internet trend or subculture. Its users literally just passively document and discuss this stuff, and there's a policy (and ethos) of "no touch." You and others endorsing its erasure (despite it not breaking any law) would know this (and perhaps secretly do) if you actually lurked there for a while instead of just credulously accepting its critics' characterization. It's also strange how the site is supposedly such a hive of doxxers, harassers, etc., yet nothing seems to happen to the journalists and tech people organizing against it.

I think the real reason it's in hot water is precisely because they just passively, permanently document so much, some of which some people with money and influence don't want documented. Maybe they documented something someone (some billionaire?) secretly doesn't want out there?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#59

Post by password11 »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #52
noduerme wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this more as meaning that they work for a legitimate company or two that is trying to organically improve their search results without stooping to nasty tricks

Yes, that is the intent

But if said company doesn't care about the human-generated content quality in the first place (evidenced by the fact that they're willing to replace it with AI generation), how is that not also a "nasty trick" by your standard?

At the end of the day they just want to optimize search results. And the Overton window of acceptability currently allows "human generated SEO content" but not "AI generated SEO content". It's just an arbitrary rule.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#60

Post by capybara_2020 »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #38
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…

Curious, isn't SEO the thing that ruined search to a big extent. A 1000 word article where the actual answer needs a fraction of that size. Or interesting content buried because it is not "SEO optimized". Or companies writing blog content and making it look helpful while actually shilling and highlighting their own product. Plus tons of other things.

So now you need something like ChatGPT to cut through the noise?

Post reply on HN