81–90 of 275 posts
However, we will have a difficult time when it comes to social media because AI content will become more and more, until it is just.
It seems plausible the next social media will remove the social part completely, and just have people as consumers, creators.
This post reminds me of Samuel Butler's novel, Erewhon. "Assume for the sake of argument that conscious beings have existed for some twenty million years: see what strides machines have made in the last thousand! May not the world last twenty million years longer? If so, what will they not in the end become? Is it not safer to nip the mischief in the bud and to forbid them further progress?"
“ He, I know—for the question had been discussed among us long before the Time Machine was made—thought but cheerlessly of the Advancement of Mankind, and saw in the growing pile of civilization only a foolish heaping that must inevitably fall back upon and destroy its makers in the end. If that is so, it remains for us to live as though it were not so.”
That passage has haunted me since. I often wonder if that is the answer to the Fermi paradox. Civilization might be but a brief spark in the long night, separated from others by both time and distance insurmountable.
> 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…
So the next question has to be: Was this still the right answer?
I've personally had plenty of instances in my programming career where the code I was working on really needed functions which were best shopped out to a common API. To avoid interrupting my flow and to better inform the API I'd be designing for this, I just continued to write as if the API did exist. Then I went on to implement the functions that were needed.
Perhaps the bot was right to presume that there should be an API for this. You might even be able to then prompt ChatGPT to create each of the functions in that API.
> 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!
> 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!
> 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…
I'm sure you can appreciate that such an initiative would be wholesale abused from day 1.
Sorry, but all I can think of after reading this blog post is the evil bit RFC: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt which has had just as much effect on internet security as this proposal will have on controlling ai generated content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
How would you score them at scale without training some model to differentiate real vs. AI content? If you need to train such a model, where would you get the data from?
> 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!
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…
Additionally, image submissions are basically never described in the text, so they are unsearchable even when they are live. There's some exceptions with archives but now you're in power-user territory.
Not being compatible with search engines is a side-effect that its userbase actually likes. You are either currently there or you are not.