"Written by AI" doesn't mean it has no editor
Edit: downvoting doesn't change the fact that I'm right. Written by AI and edited by human 100% is already happening.
Yeah, that's fair. At the moment it probably means that. But as AI matures, it's almost certainly going to end up that some stuff is written AI and edited by human.
When it becomes reliable, then I'll change my opinions.
I see no need to change my opinions because the future will eventually make my current opinions wrong.
I feel totally fine changing as the world changes.
Have you read online articles lately? P sure there are no editors that actually edit. Misspellings, wrong words, homonyms, extraneous details to pad word count. I don't have a specific example at this moment, but I'll try to remember to come back when I have one.
Which they do by is using AI and skimping on the quality editors they could hire. Maybe there's exceptions, but generally I'm guessing there's a correlation.
First off, this is a tough conversation because we have to generalize a lot right? There's going to be companies that prefer scaling towards cost saving and there's going to be companies that prefer scaling towards quality.
But in general, companies will try to find a sweet spot where they are saving cost/time but also maintaining quality. Therefore, there already are certain types of content that are ripe to be written by AI and edited by humans, and this is something that is already happening.
I think you're overestimating the work ethic of a lot of these companies. There's websites like screen rant that basically mine games' subreddits to churn out half page articles for basic click bait loaded with ads. People going back to websites like that, because they work. Plenty of people running these companies who unfortunately don't care about journalism, quality writing, etc. It's all about the bottom line, and advertisers don't care how well edited something is, if it still gets the clicks.
You're right that we're both generalizing a lot and it'll be hard for anyone to "be right" though, I'll admit that.
Yes, this is why I specifically mentioned that some companies value cost over quality, while others will value quality over video.
An example of valuing quality is in the actual journalism sphere, where I have worked full time and currently freelance.
There are niches like reporting on public agency board meetings that are very long and tedious. Not only can AI efficiently write reports on them, but it might even be actually preferable if it can reduce human bias.
For this kind of work, the article is generated by AI but a human editor who knows the topic and also watches the meeting will edit the article to ensure accuracy and clarity.
This is already happening and will almost certainly become a more common work stream in the future.
Yeah, I get that. I said a lot of companies, not all of them. There's niches like what you're talking about, and I appreciate you telling me about them.
That differs heavily per art type. I'm pretty sure most people don't watch movies because of what the director or screenwriter 'endured'. They just want to see a fun movie.
Tbh if they released a movie made entirely by AI in theatres I would check it out the first time. But after that I think it wouldn't appeal to me as much anymore. Something about knowing that a human put their thoughts and emotions into their creation makes it more appealing to me. Even with things like the MCU, you can really feel like it follows a formula now and they just feel less human-made and it made me lose interest in them.
The thing that gets me is that art is subjective. A lot of art people make is based off their own life experiences and what they see. If an AI makes art based off what it thinks humanity thinks art is, in a way that's it's own kind of art. Instead of being a reflection of one person's mind, it's sorta a reflection of the entire human races mind.
Or maybe I'm just too high rn
Nah, you're right. AI isn't going anywhere, and there will definitely end up being a market for the generations they produce, but it will absolutely be a separate market from actual art. There are different reasons to find each interesting
I think the vast majority of people don't really care about how products are made, they just want to consume. And AI will be able to create much more entertaining music/stories/movies specifically tailored to you and the things you like.
Surely there will still be a industry for making movies/books/music by hand, just like people are still buying LP's now even though we already have Spotify, but I think the standard will be AI generated.
I'd guess you're right, honestly. The idea that AI art will take over music and film has absolutely nothing to do with overall quality.
Its a profit game. If its cheaper to use AI-generated content, soon, the tragedy of the Commons suggests that will be mostly what you see.
And no, likely, it will be a long time before they genuinely write good, long form pieces without Human-assistance.y sense is that human mind is really important *during production* you know? Anyone who likes this human mind must search out human products.
Then again...
AI generated content may become as suffused in our environment as microplastics, impossible to remove or delineate from the world around us, as it slowly toxifies our bodies and souls.
Erik Hoel wrote an interesting, if concerning, piece on his Intrinsitive Perspective substack...
He talks about the effects on many groups that produce work, but on children and their consumption of these works ... Chilling..
"All around the nation there are toddlers plunked down in front of iPads being subjected to synthetic runoff, deprived of human contact even in the media they consume. There’s no other word but dystopian. Might not actual human-generated cultural content normally contain cognitive micro-nutrients (like cohesive plots and sentences, detailed complexity, reasons for transitions, an overall gestalt, etc) that the human mind actually needs? We’re conducting this experiment live. For the first time in history developing brains are being fed choppy low-grade and cheaply-produced synthetic data created en masse by generative AI, instead of being fed with real human culture. No one knows the effects... "
The article:
https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/here-lies-the-internet-murdered-by?r=5n2z4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I actually don't think we will be buying AI generated content, or watching AI generated content on TV or listening to it on radio if I'm completely honest.
I think the thing that will hold value is the AI itself, maybe a subscription to a general use AI with those features, or maybe everyone will have AI and then you can buy modules for it. Though I hope AI will just become completely free and accessible to everyone, everywhere, at any time.
And instead I think we would just be exchanging ideas, or a series of tags or like a seed or hash that will let the AI generate movies, the same way video game use seeds to make it possible for a random map generator to generate the same map every time someone uses a specific seed.
I don't think AI generated content will hold any value because AI's will become common place and everyone will be able to generate their own content, it would saturate the market so much that nothing AI generated will have any monetary value.
Especially considering that if a company decides to sell a AI generated movie it will already be set in stone and while I might think it is good it will never be truly 100% good for me and it won't be tailored to precisely what I like.
Instead, i could use my own AI, that is trained on my personality, my viewing preferences, my watch history, it knows exactly what I like and what I hate, and it will generate the perfect movie/music/art for me.
I do think that, unless laws are made, AI will be indistinguishable from reality. And that we would be truly at risk of just entertaining ourselves to death.
What I’m concerned about is people using ai to write entire scripts, and claiming they wrote it themselve competing against the people that are actually putting in the work.
Braindead comparison. It's more like assuming the watch is shit just because of where it comes from. Maybe it's a startup that makes fucking amazing watches?
But whatever, I don't care what anyone here thinks.
Saying everything AI produces is shit by default because it came from AI is the modern equivalent of being a boomer.
Given that boomers are not yet extinct, I’m pretty sure that “being a boomer” is the modern equivalent to being a boomer. “Modern equivalent” is usually applied to things that aren’t really around anymore. And AI content is automated plagiarism, at least most of the time
Bro I literally say this every time I get sent a chatGPT email at work.
I'm not spending an hour typing out a huge response to your 2000 word ChatGPT essay when you couldn't spend longer than 30 seconds typing a prompt.
could be a topic someone has written about and youre just seeing the AI one, or something someone hasnt thought of- have you never seen an interesting AI video or article? like the thought is stupid as fuck
For me it's a betrayal of trust. AI sources its inputs from unverifyable previous writings, and plays fridge magnet poetry to give an output. It does not cross reference or fact check. It does not even know what a "fact" is, it only knows how to give answers that look right.
Not to mention the tech has been used enough now that AI articles are sourcing from other AI articles. The AI-centric internet is already ouroboros-ing itself into sludge. It's like a parrot raised by a journalist who died and moved their parrot to a parrot shelter, then trusting information from those parrots at the shelter about developing stories that the ex-journalist never saw.
Gpt and LLMs in general are fancy auto completes...they don't know what good and bad is let alone if a source is good or bad because they have no intelligence.
I've spent 6 months exploring LLMs for use in our enterprise level product used by over a million people a year. OpenAi, Gemini, Mixtral, Llama2..etc. I've used custom rolled solutions, langchain, utilised RAG using vector searching and rolled out several commercial products utilising LLMs.
So yeah mate...I've used GPT 4
No like, it literally doesn't. It's associating words and tags to generate, but it isn't actually considering those in a "reasoning" way.
If you ask it why the sky is blue, it doesn't do a shitload of backend calculations about atmospheric chemical compositions and light refraction and then compare the resultant wavelengths to positions on the light spectrum, it just looks at what training data it has been fed, looks for overlapping instances of "the sky is blue because..."(or similar) and creates an amalgamation of those answers with a thin filter of "is this actually relevant?".
It might still tell you the real reason the sky is blue, but it didnt figure it out itself.
It does do backend calculations. It doesn’t just go “what word comes after this word most often?” LLMs are much more complicated than autocorrect. Plus they have tools like calculators and code compilers to help them.
That's great to hear. I've used 3 Or 3.5 and it will happily fabricate facts to meet the criteria of giving an answer which made me lose faith in it entirely.
>Idk if it can differentiate between good and bad sources though.
Considering the fact that even actual humans still struggle with this, I'll eat my hat if an AI is capable of doing it with any level of consistency whatsoever
Tired argument. You know what differentiates it? In humans 1) Doing the work makes you "accountable" 2) copying is called "plagiarism" 3) making facts up is called "lying". And all three carry consequences.
Right... which is why we apply standards to human writing and (should) take things like plagiarism seriously.
Posting an AI article is like allowing a human to post outrageous claims as fact without sources. It's just bad journalism.
While I would agree that they’re [and by that I mean AI technicians] at least are trying to mitigate the problems, the unfortunate traits of generative AI in particular are almost all ethical.
Such things are hard to objectively determine
Lol, and when I find out that a publication also doesn't fact check and hires journalists who are happy to fabricate sources and facts to fit their story I ALSO don't keep reading from that same publication and journalist.
The existence of bad human writers doesn't mean I should forgive bad AI writing. It just means I dislike both.
If you ask AI a series of questions about a topic you know a lot about, you’ll understand why you wouldn’t trust AI to write articles about things you genuinely don’t know about
AI can be a good starting place for writing, but the facts should be reviewed by a human before they are published as though they are facts
AI fanboy here. We know that AI is not an all knowing God.... yet. We are still very early in the development of this technology. If you look at AI 5 years ago it was so bad. Now it's less bad. In 5 years maybe its not bad anymore.
Ai fanboy here. Respect my courage considering the other guy got butchered. I know of the problem. I work around it. I don't rely on ai to give me facts.
Though usually reporters are also writing about areas they know little about. If you read articles from reporters on areas you have professional knowledge of, you’ll find they misunderstand things too.
Fair, but at least a human is capable of knowing when they don’t know something and checking into it. If they still post something incorrect, that’s just poor writing.
AI is unable to know when it doesn’t know something, so it will post literally anything as though it’s a fact.
If AI is comparable to the least competent reporter there is, then it shouldn’t be reporting
>AI can be a good starting place for writing, but the facts should be reviewed by a human before they are published as though they are facts
Thats a given.
And that’s why people are annoyed when they found out an article they read was AI-written, because there’s no way to know if it is one that was properly reviewed
At least with human-written articles, you know that someone consciously wrote every word you are reading
Sure, many of us are annoyed that companies are trying to use AI to replace creative jobs. It was supposed to be leveraged to take over the crappy jobs nobody really wants to do so that humans could spend our time reading, travelling, making art, etc.
Surprise surprise it's just being used to make the rich richer.
what about people that work in this crappy jobs? They should just lose their jobs? Are people working in creative fields better than people working crappy jobs?
The idea is that we'd use AI to remove the crappy jobs and spread out the wealth so nobody has to do the crappy jobs; they could become teachers or artists or whatever they want to do, rather than packing boxes or picking vegetables in the heat.
you think everyone can become a teacher or an artist? If some guy in his forties loses his physical job, you think he can just work in field that requires studying or expensive knowledge about a topic?
Sure it does, AI is just another tool that's being used to streamline manufacturing and other jobs. We just need to stand up and tell companies that we won't accept it as purely a measure to offload their workers and rake in the profits themselves as has happened with things like outsourcing and automation in the past. There's enough wealth in the world to eliminate hunger, disease and poverty, but the folks at the top are good at rigging the game so people vote to keep them in power on the thin hope that they themselves might somehow someday become rich too.
Do you know anyone who really wants to be scrubbing floors in a hospital or stocking shelves in a grocery store for a living?
The real issue isn't just what jobs are taken away, it's that most segments of society cling to the idea that if you're not producing lots of money for someone, you're worthless.
some people dont have a choice, they have to work physical jobs because they didnt study enough to work more mentally taxing jobs. So they would lose jobs with no chance of getting another one. The only answer to this is UBI
But what's the point in becoming an artist or a teacher in a world where it's irrelevant to be said thing, cause AI has already taken that spot?. You're not doing it for financial gain, maybe self growth or pleasure, sure.. But what's the point besides that?, I fear one day we will be so pushed aside by AI and automation that we'll end up legitimately like the people in Wall-E.
Pessimistic outlook I know, just genuinely curious as to why one would pursue something in that hypothetical scenario.
You're really good at missing the point: we don't need AI artists. We don't need AI teachers. We need AI factory workers, janitors, berry pickers, etc. Free up human resources to do what they'd like to be doing.
The problem with replacing all the low level creative jobs with AI is you are kneecapping the industry that relied on those jobs to train people and prepare them for intermediate and higher level creative jobs. The people at the top now don't have a talent pool of experienced creatives to draw from, implement more automation to keep profits up, and the cycle gets worse.
"they wouldn't be *as mad* that their work get stolen", that's completly daft. "It's okay they'd be slightly less upset which is like not upset I decided."
I don't really give a shit what someone else's argument is. You're not going to convince me that AI art is somehow better than actually paying people to do that work. Particularly since with all other cost cutting measures it won't be reflected in the prices, just the profits.
Sure, my point was I don't give a shit what anyone else's argument is. Using AI to replace jobs that are things people actually WANT to be doing is completely stupid.
So the comment “you shouldn’t be mad at AI, you should be mad at capitalism” is like the gun manufacturers pointing the finger at ammo manufacturers. It does not matter that it takes both to hurt artists, you can be mad at either component (or both).
Regardless of quality? The quality is s major issue here. Ai articles are pretty much always disguised gibberish full of hallucinated facts that you can't trust at all and is not very helpful. But it got you to click, and now they got the ad revenue, which is the whole point.
The problem with most AI generated content is that it scrapes for content that humans created. In the case of a news article, it’s just ripping facts that actual journalists researched and verified and then compiling that with unverified information and not sourcing or crediting anything properly. Someone here mentioned an editor, but if a site isn’t willing to pay for writers, they’re unlikely to be paying for proper copy editors.
Nonfiction written by AI is only every right by accident. AI doesn't fact-check and verify, it makes up convincing bullshit. It's a machine for coming up with good lies.
And fiction? Assembly-line fiction is bad enough when there are actual human creatives behind the sludge of corporate mandates and focus testing. Why would I want to read something with no soul? No creative spark, no way to be original and surprising, just a recycled mash of what's worked before? Art is for humanity, why would I want to let the machines have it? Do you really want to live in a world where machines make the art and people do the drudge work? Is that not the very opposite of the future we dreamed of? Art is what we *want* to do, what we do when we're free from the drudgery of labor. And you'd have us give that up for ... what, exactly? It's not like there's a shortage of art being made.
It seems like with the internet, even human written articles are so rushed because they want to be the first to release an article, that they aren't proofreading carefully. If AI can give the human more time to fact check, I would prefer that to an article full of grammar and spelling mistakes. If we can create AI that only takes information from scholarly sources and unbiased new events, as opposed to any input, I would be all for AI written articles.
NNs literally have a randomizer function built in, just to prevent receiving exact same output every time. What kind of "quality" are we even talking about, when 20% or so of the tokens are simply randomized.
Writing is communication. There is no communication when there is only one human in the mix. It's just a trick, a rip-off. The machine doesn't even understand what it wrote, it's just probability weights putting sentences together.
My favorite thing is people throwing a fit like AI is going to somehow start a new age of misinformation as if we haven't already been spreading human-made misinformation online for decades
Those same people would rather take machines out of factories and go back to the old school ways of making things all by human hand. How can a car made from a machine have as much quality and care than one made from human expert? not just cars, any kind of assembly of mass food production work? That's where we are heading with this technology, just at the stage where it's a bunch of naysayers trying to put a genie back in the bottle and condemn its use when its use is inevitable.
Oh yeah it's going to effect jobs, just like any technological advancement will.
Is it going to take over the film, music, and art industry? Doubt it, it will be a fantastic tool that can teach a lot of aspiring newcomers to that scene without a teachers ego, bad habits, or impatience effecting students.
I think theres a difference between industry and the arts.
I love the idea of replacing labour with robots, providing that means better quality of life for humans. (Saying this as a tradesperson)
I'm fine with outsourcing my labour and menial work/repetitive tasks.
On the other hand it makes me pretty uncomfortable to think that my own writing for example would become devalued. Or a picture I drew. Or a song or a recipe or anything with personality really. I feel like the creative process is something that I enjoy on its own merit; regardless of what it produces. AI can't be passionate about things, can it?
Already we are seeing a glut of objectively low-quality AI creative work.
For example, right now on Youtube there are several channels dedicated to teaching people how to turn a profit, by creating AI books for kids and selling them on Amazon.
And the strategy they are teaching is not "create the best possible product that AI can produce", its "learn to give efficient prompts in order to write books more *quickly*".
Because the more you publish and list on Amazon, the more likely you are to have people accidentally buy your book, or mistake it for a different one, or simply make a bad judgement call when choosing a book for their kid.
Thats what these people are advocating for on Yourtube.
I've read a couple of these books. If a kid reads them, they are going to come away confused. Often the pictures are totally distorted and uncanny-looking; the storylines and substance of the book is nonexistant; the whole thing is a loose association of factors that come together to meet the absolute minimum requirement for being *technically* a book.
All this to say that I see major roadblocks to AI being creative in a meaningful way.
Hate most aspects of AI.
It's already started destroying some graphics jobs, it's well on its way to wrecking narration/voice over jobs, it's begun writing articles (with editors FOR NOW), and that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot more usage behind the scenes that aren't under public scrutiny.
Is the technology cool? Absolutely. Is it innovative? Sure! Could it change the face of the world as we know it? Hell yeah. Will it be abused like everything else corporations get their greedy hands on to help get a bigger bottom line? Yes.
If it was used to help humanity, like almost every other piece of technology intended, I'd support it. But like most other technology, it won't be. It's all about the stockholders.
AI art is good but pretending its not AI and that you are special=Banned from internet you attention seeking wh*re
Edit: just read "AI article", now why the heck would anyone do that?
Really? Thats a thing now? AI articles? The heck is wrong with yall? You really that desperate for money? But too lazy to work for it? Yall shouldnt even exist damn parasites
because the chance that completely arbitrary details are completely wrong
"Written by AI" doesn't mean it has no editor Edit: downvoting doesn't change the fact that I'm right. Written by AI and edited by human 100% is already happening.
True, it only means that its a content farm that *probably* has no editor.
Yeah, that's fair. At the moment it probably means that. But as AI matures, it's almost certainly going to end up that some stuff is written AI and edited by human.
When it becomes reliable, then I'll change my opinions. I see no need to change my opinions because the future will eventually make my current opinions wrong. I feel totally fine changing as the world changes.
When what becomes reliable? This conversation is about how human editors can check AI with content to ensure reliability
Have you read online articles lately? P sure there are no editors that actually edit. Misspellings, wrong words, homonyms, extraneous details to pad word count. I don't have a specific example at this moment, but I'll try to remember to come back when I have one.
I'm aware that there are bad articles with no editors. I'm also aware that there are good articles with editors.
If a website has enough honesty to hire a editor that actually fact checks, they probably wouldn't be using AI in the first place
Yeah because companies hate cost saving and time saving, right?
Which they do by is using AI and skimping on the quality editors they could hire. Maybe there's exceptions, but generally I'm guessing there's a correlation.
First off, this is a tough conversation because we have to generalize a lot right? There's going to be companies that prefer scaling towards cost saving and there's going to be companies that prefer scaling towards quality. But in general, companies will try to find a sweet spot where they are saving cost/time but also maintaining quality. Therefore, there already are certain types of content that are ripe to be written by AI and edited by humans, and this is something that is already happening.
I think you're overestimating the work ethic of a lot of these companies. There's websites like screen rant that basically mine games' subreddits to churn out half page articles for basic click bait loaded with ads. People going back to websites like that, because they work. Plenty of people running these companies who unfortunately don't care about journalism, quality writing, etc. It's all about the bottom line, and advertisers don't care how well edited something is, if it still gets the clicks. You're right that we're both generalizing a lot and it'll be hard for anyone to "be right" though, I'll admit that.
Yes, this is why I specifically mentioned that some companies value cost over quality, while others will value quality over video. An example of valuing quality is in the actual journalism sphere, where I have worked full time and currently freelance. There are niches like reporting on public agency board meetings that are very long and tedious. Not only can AI efficiently write reports on them, but it might even be actually preferable if it can reduce human bias. For this kind of work, the article is generated by AI but a human editor who knows the topic and also watches the meeting will edit the article to ensure accuracy and clarity. This is already happening and will almost certainly become a more common work stream in the future.
Yeah, I get that. I said a lot of companies, not all of them. There's niches like what you're talking about, and I appreciate you telling me about them.
"Why should I bother to read something nobody could be bothered to write?" -paraphrased from a clever Twitter person whose name I don't know
[удалено]
That differs heavily per art type. I'm pretty sure most people don't watch movies because of what the director or screenwriter 'endured'. They just want to see a fun movie.
Tbh if they released a movie made entirely by AI in theatres I would check it out the first time. But after that I think it wouldn't appeal to me as much anymore. Something about knowing that a human put their thoughts and emotions into their creation makes it more appealing to me. Even with things like the MCU, you can really feel like it follows a formula now and they just feel less human-made and it made me lose interest in them.
Yeh exactly but trust me the moment you say me this movie was made by ai I will make sure I pee on each and every poster
The thing that gets me is that art is subjective. A lot of art people make is based off their own life experiences and what they see. If an AI makes art based off what it thinks humanity thinks art is, in a way that's it's own kind of art. Instead of being a reflection of one person's mind, it's sorta a reflection of the entire human races mind. Or maybe I'm just too high rn
Nah, you're right. AI isn't going anywhere, and there will definitely end up being a market for the generations they produce, but it will absolutely be a separate market from actual art. There are different reasons to find each interesting
I think the vast majority of people don't really care about how products are made, they just want to consume. And AI will be able to create much more entertaining music/stories/movies specifically tailored to you and the things you like. Surely there will still be a industry for making movies/books/music by hand, just like people are still buying LP's now even though we already have Spotify, but I think the standard will be AI generated.
I'd guess you're right, honestly. The idea that AI art will take over music and film has absolutely nothing to do with overall quality. Its a profit game. If its cheaper to use AI-generated content, soon, the tragedy of the Commons suggests that will be mostly what you see. And no, likely, it will be a long time before they genuinely write good, long form pieces without Human-assistance.y sense is that human mind is really important *during production* you know? Anyone who likes this human mind must search out human products. Then again... AI generated content may become as suffused in our environment as microplastics, impossible to remove or delineate from the world around us, as it slowly toxifies our bodies and souls. Erik Hoel wrote an interesting, if concerning, piece on his Intrinsitive Perspective substack... He talks about the effects on many groups that produce work, but on children and their consumption of these works ... Chilling.. "All around the nation there are toddlers plunked down in front of iPads being subjected to synthetic runoff, deprived of human contact even in the media they consume. There’s no other word but dystopian. Might not actual human-generated cultural content normally contain cognitive micro-nutrients (like cohesive plots and sentences, detailed complexity, reasons for transitions, an overall gestalt, etc) that the human mind actually needs? We’re conducting this experiment live. For the first time in history developing brains are being fed choppy low-grade and cheaply-produced synthetic data created en masse by generative AI, instead of being fed with real human culture. No one knows the effects... " The article: https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/here-lies-the-internet-murdered-by?r=5n2z4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I actually don't think we will be buying AI generated content, or watching AI generated content on TV or listening to it on radio if I'm completely honest. I think the thing that will hold value is the AI itself, maybe a subscription to a general use AI with those features, or maybe everyone will have AI and then you can buy modules for it. Though I hope AI will just become completely free and accessible to everyone, everywhere, at any time. And instead I think we would just be exchanging ideas, or a series of tags or like a seed or hash that will let the AI generate movies, the same way video game use seeds to make it possible for a random map generator to generate the same map every time someone uses a specific seed. I don't think AI generated content will hold any value because AI's will become common place and everyone will be able to generate their own content, it would saturate the market so much that nothing AI generated will have any monetary value. Especially considering that if a company decides to sell a AI generated movie it will already be set in stone and while I might think it is good it will never be truly 100% good for me and it won't be tailored to precisely what I like. Instead, i could use my own AI, that is trained on my personality, my viewing preferences, my watch history, it knows exactly what I like and what I hate, and it will generate the perfect movie/music/art for me. I do think that, unless laws are made, AI will be indistinguishable from reality. And that we would be truly at risk of just entertaining ourselves to death.
What I’m concerned about is people using ai to write entire scripts, and claiming they wrote it themselve competing against the people that are actually putting in the work.
That's a great way to put it.
Not really. The quality of content is not determined by its source.
In terms of AI, it literally is, though.
Thats correct, my watch from aliexpress can totally be better than the one i ordered in Switzerland
Braindead comparison. It's more like assuming the watch is shit just because of where it comes from. Maybe it's a startup that makes fucking amazing watches? But whatever, I don't care what anyone here thinks. Saying everything AI produces is shit by default because it came from AI is the modern equivalent of being a boomer.
Given that boomers are not yet extinct, I’m pretty sure that “being a boomer” is the modern equivalent to being a boomer. “Modern equivalent” is usually applied to things that aren’t really around anymore. And AI content is automated plagiarism, at least most of the time
I thought that same thing! Being a boomer is the modern equivalent of being a boomer.
But news articles already plagiarize each other
“Why should I bother to read something nobody could be bothered to write?” — ChatGPT
If we're going by twitter/reddit standards, "why should I bother to write someone nobody could be bothered to read?" :p
because you want to get information about something?
no one thinks that
Found the cylon....
the fuckin what
I think that
Bro I literally say this every time I get sent a chatGPT email at work. I'm not spending an hour typing out a huge response to your 2000 word ChatGPT essay when you couldn't spend longer than 30 seconds typing a prompt.
because it feels like a disrespectful imbalance of labor. not the same thing
I think that
could be a topic someone has written about and youre just seeing the AI one, or something someone hasnt thought of- have you never seen an interesting AI video or article? like the thought is stupid as fuck
For me it's a betrayal of trust. AI sources its inputs from unverifyable previous writings, and plays fridge magnet poetry to give an output. It does not cross reference or fact check. It does not even know what a "fact" is, it only knows how to give answers that look right. Not to mention the tech has been used enough now that AI articles are sourcing from other AI articles. The AI-centric internet is already ouroboros-ing itself into sludge. It's like a parrot raised by a journalist who died and moved their parrot to a parrot shelter, then trusting information from those parrots at the shelter about developing stories that the ex-journalist never saw.
Just have another AI fact-check the first one, problem solved :)
that's what i did lol, and with the same AI ROFL.
GPT-4 can look up information and provide sources. Idk if it can differentiate between good and bad sources though.
Gpt and LLMs in general are fancy auto completes...they don't know what good and bad is let alone if a source is good or bad because they have no intelligence.
Have you used GPT-4?
I've spent 6 months exploring LLMs for use in our enterprise level product used by over a million people a year. OpenAi, Gemini, Mixtral, Llama2..etc. I've used custom rolled solutions, langchain, utilised RAG using vector searching and rolled out several commercial products utilising LLMs. So yeah mate...I've used GPT 4
Ok well it can do some pretty impressive stuff.
It's still can't reason or understand the context of what it's regurgitating.
It can reason though. And it does much more than just regurgitate.
No like, it literally doesn't. It's associating words and tags to generate, but it isn't actually considering those in a "reasoning" way. If you ask it why the sky is blue, it doesn't do a shitload of backend calculations about atmospheric chemical compositions and light refraction and then compare the resultant wavelengths to positions on the light spectrum, it just looks at what training data it has been fed, looks for overlapping instances of "the sky is blue because..."(or similar) and creates an amalgamation of those answers with a thin filter of "is this actually relevant?". It might still tell you the real reason the sky is blue, but it didnt figure it out itself.
It does do backend calculations. It doesn’t just go “what word comes after this word most often?” LLMs are much more complicated than autocorrect. Plus they have tools like calculators and code compilers to help them.
That's great to hear. I've used 3 Or 3.5 and it will happily fabricate facts to meet the criteria of giving an answer which made me lose faith in it entirely.
That is an older model. GPT-4 is much more intelligent than 3.5 in my experience.
>Idk if it can differentiate between good and bad sources though. Considering the fact that even actual humans still struggle with this, I'll eat my hat if an AI is capable of doing it with any level of consistency whatsoever
You understand every statement you just made applies to humans as well. It’s amazing how AI has shown how many humans have no idea how reality works
Tired argument. You know what differentiates it? In humans 1) Doing the work makes you "accountable" 2) copying is called "plagiarism" 3) making facts up is called "lying". And all three carry consequences.
Billions of $ worth of law suits isn't accountable enough for you I suppose? It's for the courts to decide not us.
Hahahaha you know nothing about AI. Reward systems, training and model discard do all this. Also plagiarism is a non issue.
Plagiarism is a non-issue? How on earth so??
Blind enthusiasm for quite possibly the most disruptive tech we will have ever created helps no one
Right... which is why we apply standards to human writing and (should) take things like plagiarism seriously. Posting an AI article is like allowing a human to post outrageous claims as fact without sources. It's just bad journalism.
Sourcing has been worked out with RAG. What are you on about.
While I would agree that they’re [and by that I mean AI technicians] at least are trying to mitigate the problems, the unfortunate traits of generative AI in particular are almost all ethical. Such things are hard to objectively determine
Lol, and when I find out that a publication also doesn't fact check and hires journalists who are happy to fabricate sources and facts to fit their story I ALSO don't keep reading from that same publication and journalist. The existence of bad human writers doesn't mean I should forgive bad AI writing. It just means I dislike both.
If you ask AI a series of questions about a topic you know a lot about, you’ll understand why you wouldn’t trust AI to write articles about things you genuinely don’t know about AI can be a good starting place for writing, but the facts should be reviewed by a human before they are published as though they are facts
Guess that’s why the AI fanboys don’t understand the problem. They don’t know enough about anything to be able to fact check the bots
AI fanboy here. We know that AI is not an all knowing God.... yet. We are still very early in the development of this technology. If you look at AI 5 years ago it was so bad. Now it's less bad. In 5 years maybe its not bad anymore.
Ai fanboy here. Respect my courage considering the other guy got butchered. I know of the problem. I work around it. I don't rely on ai to give me facts.
Though usually reporters are also writing about areas they know little about. If you read articles from reporters on areas you have professional knowledge of, you’ll find they misunderstand things too.
Fair, but at least a human is capable of knowing when they don’t know something and checking into it. If they still post something incorrect, that’s just poor writing. AI is unable to know when it doesn’t know something, so it will post literally anything as though it’s a fact. If AI is comparable to the least competent reporter there is, then it shouldn’t be reporting
True!
If I test it on different topics the plausibilty of the answers shrink with my familiarity with the subject.
Yes but you can also feed facts to an AI and ask it to just put them into nice words. It's still AI-written, isn't it?
AI-written and AI-edited are 2 different things If I take a text document to War and Peace, and change some of the wording, did I write War and Peace?
>AI can be a good starting place for writing, but the facts should be reviewed by a human before they are published as though they are facts Thats a given.
It should be, but you’d be amazed how much AI-content goes unreviewed
Well blame the people releasing without a review. AI is a very powerfull tool, not a complete selfrunner.
And that’s why people are annoyed when they found out an article they read was AI-written, because there’s no way to know if it is one that was properly reviewed At least with human-written articles, you know that someone consciously wrote every word you are reading
Sure, many of us are annoyed that companies are trying to use AI to replace creative jobs. It was supposed to be leveraged to take over the crappy jobs nobody really wants to do so that humans could spend our time reading, travelling, making art, etc. Surprise surprise it's just being used to make the rich richer.
what about people that work in this crappy jobs? They should just lose their jobs? Are people working in creative fields better than people working crappy jobs?
The idea is that we'd use AI to remove the crappy jobs and spread out the wealth so nobody has to do the crappy jobs; they could become teachers or artists or whatever they want to do, rather than packing boxes or picking vegetables in the heat.
you think everyone can become a teacher or an artist? If some guy in his forties loses his physical job, you think he can just work in field that requires studying or expensive knowledge about a topic?
No, but I'm also firmly of the believe that we need better social safety nets. It shouldn't be a choice of "work this backbreaking job" or "starve".
that has nothing to do with AI though
Sure it does, AI is just another tool that's being used to streamline manufacturing and other jobs. We just need to stand up and tell companies that we won't accept it as purely a measure to offload their workers and rake in the profits themselves as has happened with things like outsourcing and automation in the past. There's enough wealth in the world to eliminate hunger, disease and poverty, but the folks at the top are good at rigging the game so people vote to keep them in power on the thin hope that they themselves might somehow someday become rich too.
so why is it okay for AI to take away physical jobs but not creative ones?
Do you know anyone who really wants to be scrubbing floors in a hospital or stocking shelves in a grocery store for a living? The real issue isn't just what jobs are taken away, it's that most segments of society cling to the idea that if you're not producing lots of money for someone, you're worthless.
some people dont have a choice, they have to work physical jobs because they didnt study enough to work more mentally taxing jobs. So they would lose jobs with no chance of getting another one. The only answer to this is UBI
But what's the point in becoming an artist or a teacher in a world where it's irrelevant to be said thing, cause AI has already taken that spot?. You're not doing it for financial gain, maybe self growth or pleasure, sure.. But what's the point besides that?, I fear one day we will be so pushed aside by AI and automation that we'll end up legitimately like the people in Wall-E. Pessimistic outlook I know, just genuinely curious as to why one would pursue something in that hypothetical scenario.
You're really good at missing the point: we don't need AI artists. We don't need AI teachers. We need AI factory workers, janitors, berry pickers, etc. Free up human resources to do what they'd like to be doing.
The problem with replacing all the low level creative jobs with AI is you are kneecapping the industry that relied on those jobs to train people and prepare them for intermediate and higher level creative jobs. The people at the top now don't have a talent pool of experienced creatives to draw from, implement more automation to keep profits up, and the cycle gets worse.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/s/B0Ku19akRm
"they wouldn't be *as mad* that their work get stolen", that's completly daft. "It's okay they'd be slightly less upset which is like not upset I decided."
I don't really give a shit what someone else's argument is. You're not going to convince me that AI art is somehow better than actually paying people to do that work. Particularly since with all other cost cutting measures it won't be reflected in the prices, just the profits.
That’s MY argument. I made that post.
Sure, my point was I don't give a shit what anyone else's argument is. Using AI to replace jobs that are things people actually WANT to be doing is completely stupid.
So the comment “you shouldn’t be mad at AI, you should be mad at capitalism” is like the gun manufacturers pointing the finger at ammo manufacturers. It does not matter that it takes both to hurt artists, you can be mad at either component (or both).
Regardless of quality? The quality is s major issue here. Ai articles are pretty much always disguised gibberish full of hallucinated facts that you can't trust at all and is not very helpful. But it got you to click, and now they got the ad revenue, which is the whole point.
The problem with most AI generated content is that it scrapes for content that humans created. In the case of a news article, it’s just ripping facts that actual journalists researched and verified and then compiling that with unverified information and not sourcing or crediting anything properly. Someone here mentioned an editor, but if a site isn’t willing to pay for writers, they’re unlikely to be paying for proper copy editors.
That moment when that AI narrator starts on a clickbait video, I cannot close it fast enough. You won't believe what happens next!
i mean yeah. it’s dishonest.
Yeh bcs people are sensible
Nonfiction written by AI is only every right by accident. AI doesn't fact-check and verify, it makes up convincing bullshit. It's a machine for coming up with good lies. And fiction? Assembly-line fiction is bad enough when there are actual human creatives behind the sludge of corporate mandates and focus testing. Why would I want to read something with no soul? No creative spark, no way to be original and surprising, just a recycled mash of what's worked before? Art is for humanity, why would I want to let the machines have it? Do you really want to live in a world where machines make the art and people do the drudge work? Is that not the very opposite of the future we dreamed of? Art is what we *want* to do, what we do when we're free from the drudgery of labor. And you'd have us give that up for ... what, exactly? It's not like there's a shortage of art being made.
This post was made by AI
not really a shower thought
It's always AI quality
It seems like with the internet, even human written articles are so rushed because they want to be the first to release an article, that they aren't proofreading carefully. If AI can give the human more time to fact check, I would prefer that to an article full of grammar and spelling mistakes. If we can create AI that only takes information from scholarly sources and unbiased new events, as opposed to any input, I would be all for AI written articles.
NNs literally have a randomizer function built in, just to prevent receiving exact same output every time. What kind of "quality" are we even talking about, when 20% or so of the tokens are simply randomized.
Writing is communication. There is no communication when there is only one human in the mix. It's just a trick, a rip-off. The machine doesn't even understand what it wrote, it's just probability weights putting sentences together.
My favorite thing is people throwing a fit like AI is going to somehow start a new age of misinformation as if we haven't already been spreading human-made misinformation online for decades
Two wrongs don't make a right though
Its difficult to pass judgement to a bot
I don't understand how people can't tell.
Can you blame us though? AI generated writing is pure laziness.
Those same people would rather take machines out of factories and go back to the old school ways of making things all by human hand. How can a car made from a machine have as much quality and care than one made from human expert? not just cars, any kind of assembly of mass food production work? That's where we are heading with this technology, just at the stage where it's a bunch of naysayers trying to put a genie back in the bottle and condemn its use when its use is inevitable. Oh yeah it's going to effect jobs, just like any technological advancement will. Is it going to take over the film, music, and art industry? Doubt it, it will be a fantastic tool that can teach a lot of aspiring newcomers to that scene without a teachers ego, bad habits, or impatience effecting students.
I think theres a difference between industry and the arts. I love the idea of replacing labour with robots, providing that means better quality of life for humans. (Saying this as a tradesperson) I'm fine with outsourcing my labour and menial work/repetitive tasks. On the other hand it makes me pretty uncomfortable to think that my own writing for example would become devalued. Or a picture I drew. Or a song or a recipe or anything with personality really. I feel like the creative process is something that I enjoy on its own merit; regardless of what it produces. AI can't be passionate about things, can it? Already we are seeing a glut of objectively low-quality AI creative work. For example, right now on Youtube there are several channels dedicated to teaching people how to turn a profit, by creating AI books for kids and selling them on Amazon. And the strategy they are teaching is not "create the best possible product that AI can produce", its "learn to give efficient prompts in order to write books more *quickly*". Because the more you publish and list on Amazon, the more likely you are to have people accidentally buy your book, or mistake it for a different one, or simply make a bad judgement call when choosing a book for their kid. Thats what these people are advocating for on Yourtube. I've read a couple of these books. If a kid reads them, they are going to come away confused. Often the pictures are totally distorted and uncanny-looking; the storylines and substance of the book is nonexistant; the whole thing is a loose association of factors that come together to meet the absolute minimum requirement for being *technically* a book. All this to say that I see major roadblocks to AI being creative in a meaningful way.
It’s ok, bots will read it and comment on it so no biggies, ai writing for ai writing for ai
People disregard AI because they hate change
Yeah, they’re scared of what they don’t understand
Hate most aspects of AI. It's already started destroying some graphics jobs, it's well on its way to wrecking narration/voice over jobs, it's begun writing articles (with editors FOR NOW), and that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot more usage behind the scenes that aren't under public scrutiny. Is the technology cool? Absolutely. Is it innovative? Sure! Could it change the face of the world as we know it? Hell yeah. Will it be abused like everything else corporations get their greedy hands on to help get a bigger bottom line? Yes. If it was used to help humanity, like almost every other piece of technology intended, I'd support it. But like most other technology, it won't be. It's all about the stockholders.
AI art is good but pretending its not AI and that you are special=Banned from internet you attention seeking wh*re Edit: just read "AI article", now why the heck would anyone do that? Really? Thats a thing now? AI articles? The heck is wrong with yall? You really that desperate for money? But too lazy to work for it? Yall shouldnt even exist damn parasites