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

61–70 of 275 posts

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#61

Post by bamboozled »

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 asked it to generate sample aws step function config and as far as I could tell it made up configuration parameters. I know it’s a language model.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#62

Post by CuriouslyC »

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…

This isn't an issue, because it's possible to add prose quality and content accuracy scores to training data and train the model to predict those quantities during generation, which would allow you to condition the generation on high prose quality/accuracy. It just requires a small update to the model, and a shit ton of data set annotation time.

Likewise, images can be scored for aesthetics and consistency and models updated to predict and condition in the same way.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#63

Post by alkjsdlkjasd »

TheMaskedCoder wrote: post #47
dopylitty wrote: post #32

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…

> The long term impact of the ease of generating low nutrition digital content using language models may be that people put down their devices The problem is people don't always make the wise decision. Evidence: the junk food industry is alive and kicking. Some people will disconnect from devices, but others may just say "this is the way things are now" and adjust themselves to the flavor of junk content.

Why are you assuming that it will make writing worse not better?

Just because it can be used by non-experts to create crappy written work, it can also be used by people who work with it to augment and improve their existing writen work.

To my mind AI is a general purpose technology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_technology

I guess using this mental model, what you are worried about is the equivilent to pollution?

Did the printing press also increase the amount of crap in circulation?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#64

Post by foobarbecue »

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…

It reminds me of a dog eating its own vomit.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#65

Post by negroni »

darkerside wrote: post #21

> do you really want to cry watching a movie that was 100% produced by robots? The fear reminds me of the early days of hip hop, where songs remixed from the past were blasted as unoriginal. I think we've all mostly agreed now that you can build new content that honors the old whole being completely fresh.

Coincidentally, I had ChatGpt write a short story about a man going to the beach in they style of Dostoevsky and showed it to my wife.

And she cried for a minute before starting to laugh that she was crying from a story made by a bot.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#66

Post by CuriouslyC »

dopylitty wrote: post #32

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…

We need content curation AI to catch up with content generation AI.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#67

Post by trompetenaccoun »

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 created/run it. What sort of content it delivers. Just as it makes sense with human authors to look up their biography and publishing history.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#68

Post by daveguy »

throwawayhnfpg wrote: post #18
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.

Calling others' work product "content" is pretty offensive.

I disagree. We have called online distribution "content distribution" and the people who contribute stories, videos, and art "content creators" for at least a decade. It's a catch-all generic term for all content that another person would consume via a platform. In a general work setting you're probably not producing content for a platform, but you are certainly producing content for your coworkers and customers. It's so you don't have to say: "stories, blogs, vlogs, photos, digital art, products and any other thing that is consumed by others."

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#69

Post by cmrdporcupine »

The problem is -- just like the food products the author uses as analogy -- there is no reasonable agreed-on line between "natural" and "unnatural", "homemade" vs "factory", and "AI" vs "not-AI" because the processes at work are a gradient.

Is my spell or grammar check an AI? No, why not? What if I translate a word from another language while writing, using an automatic translation tool? What about the algorithms that boost (or don't boost) my post through various networks, and pick an audience for it? And the analytics tools I use? etc. etc. And all of this will just become murkier and murkier.

"AI" is itself a problematic term, since as many of us know many of the things so-marketed are little more than a bundle of heuristics or a complicated statistical model. And many of the "authoring" tools generating texts or images or code are really just copy-and-pasting-and-mutating things without a lot of magic in-between, but in clever ways that "trick" us into seeing it as original authorship. (Ok us humans do this too)

Perhaps the most reasonable dividing line is: is there a machine here that is emulating a human, pretending to be one? That is perhaps the thing that bothers me most about the recent wave with ChatGPT, Google's Meena etc -- the authors of these systems didn't have to create systems that presented with a human-like identity with pronouns and the illusion of selfhood. But they did, and now we have the Lemoine incident etc.

Reminds me very much of Dune, and its "Orange Catholic Bible"'s “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.” I think Herbert was onto something -- the question of whether something is truly human (or human created) or not might become the key important issue of our time and the ambiguity and confusion around that is going to become troublesome.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#70

Post by rgrieselhuber »

capybara_2020 wrote: post #60
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are various ways of looking at it and, of course, all sorts of people involved. My focus has always just been to encourage people to treat the search engines as an index that will pick up and rank quality content if you treat them that way. It still works very well today.
Post reply on HN