Certified 100% AI-free organic content • Hacker News Board

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#91

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 3:05 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #79

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…

> 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 Not necessarily all AI contents are bad and all human contents are good. We need a way to separate the good from the bad, not AI from human, and it might be impossible to do 100% correct anyway.

I think I would compare it to Stack Overflow. Some of the solutions do exist there, but not all are applicable to the use case or the exact circumstances the person asks there and yet the prompt used by AI would remain the same. SO has its rating system, but it has the same issue as the sentence above. From that perspective, we have identified potentially good human output ( assuming it wasn't already pollinated with AI output, which seems less and less likely ) that should only be accessible by humans and we would need a separate forum for bad AI output ( that should be verified by humans as bad but maybe only be accessible by AI once verified ).

I am just spitballing. I do not really have a solution in mind. It just sounds like an interesting problem going forward.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#92

Post by lolinder » Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 3:12 PM UTC

alpos wrote: post #83

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. 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…

Well, this is ChatGPT, not Copilot, so I'd assume that OP was looking for a snippet using a public library rather than an internal API. In that context, suggesting you use an API that doesn't exist is just wrong.

I've definitely done this with Copilot, though—it will suggest an API that doesn't actually exist but logically should in order to be consistent, and I'll go create it.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#93

Post by dazc » Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 3:13 PM UTC

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?

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

I once employed a journalist to write about the pros and cons of wedding insurance. Just to give you a clue how long ago this was, it was a unique article at the time.

Many years years later, every article you will read about wedding insurance (there will be many thousands) is around 90% similar in style and content to the one I paid for.

I dare say you could use any other topic as an example, one thoroughly researched original and many thousand similar copies. I can't see how ChatGPT is not going to make this situation much worse?

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#94

Post by short_sells_poo » Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 3:13 PM UTC

virtualritz wrote: post #10

> One of my favorite products is “100% Fat-Free Pickled Cucumbers Fit (Gluten Free), “ which I once saw at the grocery store. On my first fligh to the US, in the 90's, a rather obese lady in the row in front of me asked the flight attendant: "Excuse me. Do you have fat-free water?" The flight attendant hesitated a split second, her face not moving an inch. Then she smiled and replied: "We certainly have fat-free wate…

A few years ago in a hotel in London I had complementary water bottles on the night stand. The label said "Organic Water from Scotland". I was like: uhh organic water from Scotland is probably cattle piss. I prefer inorganic, non-bio water.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#95

Post by rgrieselhuber » Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 3:15 PM UTC

dazc wrote: post #86

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…

> 'It would be very interesting if companies and site owners wished to self-certify their site as organic with something like an /ai-free.txt.' I'm sure you can appreciate that such an initiative would be wholesale abused from day 1.

As with anything in the industry, yes. But it would provide a basis for ranking penalties if the search engines cared about it.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#96

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 3:16 PM UTC

noduerme wrote: post #53

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?

To your point, anecdotally, the system is heavily gamed. The other day, I saw reviews for a restaurant pop up that did not quite open yet. Either reviewers got a sneak peek behind the chef's curtain or those reviews are not quite true.

Sadly, word of mouth again becomes defacto the only semi-reliable way to separate crap from non-crap and even that comes with its own set of issues and attempts at gaming.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#97

Post by rgrieselhuber » Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 3:17 PM UTC

password11 wrote: post #59

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the difference between created content vs. generated content is quite more than arbitrary. If the leading search engines truly don't care about the difference, I'd predict a future where you have more bifurcation between a human web and a bot-driven one.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#98

Post by rcme » Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 3:17 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #88

rcme wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

We don't need to differentiate AI vs Human, just accurate and well written vs not. We'd do that the same way we've scored stuff at scale so far - grad students and crowdsourcing.

The scale of data for these LLMs is well beyond the scale producible via crowdsourcing.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#99

Post by ipython » Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 3:19 PM UTC

fellerts wrote: post #87

ipython wrote: post #80

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.

That RFC was intended as a joke though (look at the date). This isn't, and I agree that it sounds like a feeble attempt at controlling the floodgates.

Yes I know it was a joke - hence my point.

Re: Certified 100% AI-free organic content

#100

Post by idopmstuff » Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 3:19 PM UTC

dazc wrote: post #93

capybara_2020 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> So now you need something like ChatGPT to cut through the noise? I once employed a journalist to write about the pros and cons of wedding insurance. Just to give you a clue how long ago this was, it was a unique article at the time. Many years years later, every article you will read about wedding insurance (there will be many thousands) is around 90% similar in style and content to the one I paid for. I dare say y…

My guess is that ChatGPT is going to solve the SEO spam problem by changing the way we search for things. Instead of searching for webpages that have information about a topic, we're going to ask an AI.

It'll tell you what the pros and cons of wedding insurance are, and because eventually it'll have access to your calendar, it'll tailor that answers to the specifics of the fact that you're having a destination wedding during monsoon season in the area.

Once this kind of AI search becomes the default way we look for information, there won't be a point to creating SEO spam anymore. It'll create other problems, of course, but that's the way it goes with new technology.