4 ms·

I don't know if it says something about text generation or human text processing, but whenever I read an example of computer generated text, all through I think

I don't know if it says something about text generation or human text processing, but whenever I read an example of computer generated text, all through I think "I can't tell this is machine generated, it seems completely natural," and the only giveaway is that at the end I have no idea what it said. It's a pretty eerie feeling. It's as though both the AI and my short-term processing only pay attention to a context of a few sentences, so nothing seems off until I try to understand it as a whole. EDIT: Thinking more, what it feels like most of all is reading a page of a book and not taking it in.

attilakun 6y ago
Read Blindsight by Peter Watts. It touches on the phenomena that you are describing.
methyl 6y ago
I have similar feelings. Human-written text in general has one coherent flow of ideas. So what if we used text generation algorithms on a paragraph basis, so that the idea flow is still figured out by a human (input would be just an outline)? That should make the generated text feel like a whole, especially if we could preserve the style its written across the whole text.
pasquinelli 6y ago
To me it reads like a child telling a story, but that this child has an adult's ability to use language. When children tell a story they aren't going anywhere with it but don't know how to cover it up.
- carlmr 6y ago
  I know plenty of adults that can't seem to get to a point.
  - lowdose 6y ago
    Kevin Hart on the Joe Rogan show comes to mind.
- tarsinge 6y ago
  Maybe someone drunk then?
andromeduck 6y ago
Aka corp speak.
theon144 6y ago
Reminds me of a relatively old article I read, "Humans Who Are Not Concentrating Are Not General Intelligences": https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/humans-who-are-not-concentrating-are-not-general-intelligences/ https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/humans-who-are...
wiz21c 6y ago
That's really well put. And it does reflect how that kind of document is produced. So I'm not surprised at all. Problem arises when you read that document without really trying to understand it. In that case, it might be enough to trigger some thoughts. It also appears to me that two way communications, that is, social interactions, will be the only way to form truth. That is, AI produced content could erode some more the trust we put in of newspaper, TV news, etc (all forms of one way communication). Not that we've waited AI to distrust those, but well, on e more nail in the coffin :-) (this text, although rather unclear, was written by a genuine human :-) )
urlwolf 6y ago
This happens to me when I'm reading in a language I'm not very good at (German). Each sentence may make sense, but overall I feel I didn't get the point. I guess it's a cummulative error situation, where you reach a threshold after which the point is lost.
Nursie 6y ago
> the only giveaway is that at the end I have no idea what it said So it's a lot like corporate executive speak then? I agree with your point, it does seem very much like valid speech, but somehow the informational content is missing. It's like speech without the actual comminication part.
- fnord123 6y ago
  I've read a lot of academic papers like this.
maest 6y ago
That would suggest combining 2 models: one to decide what the macro text structure should be and a different one (GPT) to decide how to fill in all the text flesh.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  That takes the whole write drunk, edit sober to a whole new level. GPT2 the drunken novelist.
CardenB 6y ago
This is because our current methods of machine learning are really good at finding patterns but not very good at enforcing underlying models.
tarsinge 6y ago
This has some parallels to generic random corporate PR or marketing speak. Some communications are already so automated and dehumanized that we are used to random content signed by a pseudo real person that we gloss over, and are more easily fall for GPT like generated content that has similar form. Edit: I mean I guess someone of a previous generation used to only read the newspaper and letters would more instantly spot something is wrong.
Udik 6y ago
The example above is impressive because it actually makes sense, except for the last sentence of the first paragraph: "But this time, his publicist is saying he'll be wearing a tux no matter what." Remove that, and there is a typical if completely uninteresting celebrity argument: one has to play eccentric in public occasions (he did it last year, he's planning to do it again) and the other chides him for what she feels it's maybe a lack of respect? And he replies that despite his best intentions he can't go against his conscience. There, done. It's a perfect little piece ready to be served in some celebrity gossip magazine.
xamdam 6y ago
Relevant post about GPT2: https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/humans-who-are-not-concentrating-are-not-general-intelligences/ https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/humans-who-are...
tripzilch 6y ago
It sounds like someone talking without knowing (or caring) where they're going with it. I think that's what missing. Usually we communicate with a certain goal in mind, to bring across some point. This text was generated without such a goal, you notice it doesn't really know when to stop talking. I wonder what was the stopping criterion, but I'm sure it wasn't "keep talking until all the information we want to convey has been mentioned".

attilakun 6y ago

Read Blindsight by Peter Watts. It touches on the phenomena that you are describing.

methyl 6y ago

I have similar feelings. Human-written text in general has one coherent flow of ideas. So what if we used text generation algorithms on a paragraph basis, so that the idea flow is still figured out by a human (input would be just an outline)? That should make the generated text feel like a whole, especially if we could preserve the style its written across the whole text.

pasquinelli 6y ago

To me it reads like a child telling a story, but that this child has an adult's ability to use language. When children tell a story they aren't going anywhere with it but don't know how to cover it up.

carlmr 6y ago
I know plenty of adults that can't seem to get to a point.
- lowdose 6y ago
  Kevin Hart on the Joe Rogan show comes to mind.
tarsinge 6y ago
Maybe someone drunk then?

andromeduck 6y ago

Aka corp speak.

theon144 6y ago

Reminds me of a relatively old article I read, "Humans Who Are Not Concentrating Are Not General Intelligences": https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/humans-who-are-not-concentrating-are-not-general-intelligences/ https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/humans-who-are...

wiz21c 6y ago

That's really well put. And it does reflect how that kind of document is produced. So I'm not surprised at all. Problem arises when you read that document without really trying to understand it. In that case, it might be enough to trigger some thoughts. It also appears to me that two way communications, that is, social interactions, will be the only way to form truth. That is, AI produced content could erode some more the trust we put in of newspaper, TV news, etc (all forms of one way communication). Not that we've waited AI to distrust those, but well, on e more nail in the coffin :-) (this text, although rather unclear, was written by a genuine human :-) )

urlwolf 6y ago

This happens to me when I'm reading in a language I'm not very good at (German). Each sentence may make sense, but overall I feel I didn't get the point. I guess it's a cummulative error situation, where you reach a threshold after which the point is lost.

Nursie 6y ago

> the only giveaway is that at the end I have no idea what it said So it's a lot like corporate executive speak then? I agree with your point, it does seem very much like valid speech, but somehow the informational content is missing. It's like speech without the actual comminication part.

fnord123 6y ago
I've read a lot of academic papers like this.

maest 6y ago

That would suggest combining 2 models: one to decide what the macro text structure should be and a different one (GPT) to decide how to fill in all the text flesh.

runawaybottle 6y ago
That takes the whole write drunk, edit sober to a whole new level. GPT2 the drunken novelist.

CardenB 6y ago

This is because our current methods of machine learning are really good at finding patterns but not very good at enforcing underlying models.

tarsinge 6y ago

This has some parallels to generic random corporate PR or marketing speak. Some communications are already so automated and dehumanized that we are used to random content signed by a pseudo real person that we gloss over, and are more easily fall for GPT like generated content that has similar form. Edit: I mean I guess someone of a previous generation used to only read the newspaper and letters would more instantly spot something is wrong.

Udik 6y ago

The example above is impressive because it actually makes sense, except for the last sentence of the first paragraph: "But this time, his publicist is saying he'll be wearing a tux no matter what." Remove that, and there is a typical if completely uninteresting celebrity argument: one has to play eccentric in public occasions (he did it last year, he's planning to do it again) and the other chides him for what she feels it's maybe a lack of respect? And he replies that despite his best intentions he can't go against his conscience. There, done. It's a perfect little piece ready to be served in some celebrity gossip magazine.

xamdam 6y ago

Relevant post about GPT2: https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/humans-who-are-not-concentrating-are-not-general-intelligences/ https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/humans-who-are...

tripzilch 6y ago

It sounds like someone talking without knowing (or caring) where they're going with it. I think that's what missing. Usually we communicate with a certain goal in mind, to bring across some point. This text was generated without such a goal, you notice it doesn't really know when to stop talking. I wonder what was the stopping criterion, but I'm sure it wasn't "keep talking until all the information we want to convey has been mentioned".