3 ms·

Nowadays when reading articles I usually have a "did a bot write this" meter running in my head. When the author has no point and is just spewing related words

Nowadays when reading articles I usually have a "did a bot write this" meter running in my head. When the author has no point and is just spewing related words that form sentences I usually click away. I wonder at what point it'll switch to "did a human write this" and I will click away when I realize it's inefficient monkey words.

sjtindell 6y ago
Perhaps the polarization and politicization here in the US will bring about your scenario #2 that much faster...in the same way we’ve found some people can trust a therapist AI more than a human one, the same will happen for writers.
Reedx 6y ago
Soon we'll have that cognitive overhead on HN threads and there will be a larger volume to parse. Will the comments still be worth reading at that point? [ this comment may or may not be GPT-3 generated ]
- ccozan 6y ago
  There is a very insightful XKCD comic about this but I can't find it. Please anyone?
  - mandelken 6y ago
    https://xkcd.com/810/ https://xkcd.com/810/
- espadrine 6y ago
  That is a silly discrepancy. Of course machines are capable of valuable discourse, because humans are biological machines, and humans are capable of valuable discourse. Intelligent contributions are welcome whether they come from silicon-based or carbon-based life.
  - throwawayinfo 6y ago
    The other way to look at it is that HN comments are indistinguishable from GPT-3 generated sentences. Hell, even a standard Markov chain would suffice.
    - espadrine 6y ago
      That is as irrelevant as the people second-guessing messages: “was this written by a woman?” Judge the content, not the source.
      - evolve2k 6y ago
        I think a key issue is that in any text we use incomplete indicators to determine legitimacy. Deciding on the legitimacy of an “opinion” comes down to meta ways of assessing; including the length of the text (HN rewards longer responses if they can maintain coherence and interest), the language style used (don’t make a technical mistake and use a technical term in the wrong context), the logic with which the argument is laid out, the emotional tone of the writer (No jokes on HN please). All of these are now gameable leading to say for risk for example of state actors shifting our collective opinions on a huge range of topics. I regularly make spelling mistakes in my posts and when I don’t correct them I loose points as I think the coherence and easy of reading goes down. GPT3 is unlikely to have the same issues.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Is this a specific suggestion that you believe a significant fraction of news articles are written by bots? Is it a jokey way to repackage that tired everything-used-to-be-better cynicism? I really can't tell! And, by the way, journalism never was as matter-of-fact-only as everyone somehow assumes. Even you parents probably grew up in a Hunter S. Thompson-world. Your Grandparents had Hemingway who, despite the short sentences, didn't exactly crack the Shannon Limit in his war dispatches. There have always been different styles. Just read the headlines only and you're almost back to the 19th century, when news-tickers actually ticked, and every tick cost a dollar, and a dollar is an hourly wage. But I'd suggest actually understanding the purpose of narrative journalism and occasionally indulging in it. I've seen that complaint so often, and from a certain type of person almost exclusively, and I'm starting to wonder if it isn't some sort of psychological phenomenon, with guys (it's always men) fearing that anything less dry than a phone book rubs up on them, and their masculinity and rationality might suffer irreparable harm from exposure to yucky "feelings".
- bun_at_work 6y ago
  I think OP is just saying that articles written by bots are currently worse than articles written by people, while pondering the time in the future where articles written by bots are better than those written by people. I'm pretty sure OP is commenting on the quality of writing in general, not journalism... So...who's cynical here?
- perl4ever 6y ago
  >Is this a specific suggestion that you believe a significant fraction of news articles are written by bots? Financial news on lesser known public companies seems to be. It's easy to generate a story based on some numbers about the stock to parameterize it. Example (showing absolutely no understanding): "Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., belongs to Healthcare sector and Biotechnology industry. The company’s Market capitalization is $1.68B with the total Outstanding Shares of 32. On 03-09-2020 (Thursday), SRNE stock construct a change of -2.89 in a total of its share price and finished its trading at 7.06. Profitability Ratios (ROE, ROA, ROI): Looking into the profitability ratios of SRNE stock, an investor will find its ROE, ROA, ROI standing at -297.9%, -49.4% and -91.3%, respectively."

sjtindell 6y ago

Perhaps the polarization and politicization here in the US will bring about your scenario #2 that much faster...in the same way we’ve found some people can trust a therapist AI more than a human one, the same will happen for writers.

Reedx 6y ago

Soon we'll have that cognitive overhead on HN threads and there will be a larger volume to parse. Will the comments still be worth reading at that point? [ this comment may or may not be GPT-3 generated ]

ccozan 6y ago
There is a very insightful XKCD comic about this but I can't find it. Please anyone?
- mandelken 6y ago
  https://xkcd.com/810/ https://xkcd.com/810/
espadrine 6y ago
That is a silly discrepancy. Of course machines are capable of valuable discourse, because humans are biological machines, and humans are capable of valuable discourse. Intelligent contributions are welcome whether they come from silicon-based or carbon-based life.
- throwawayinfo 6y ago
  The other way to look at it is that HN comments are indistinguishable from GPT-3 generated sentences. Hell, even a standard Markov chain would suffice.
  - espadrine 6y ago
    That is as irrelevant as the people second-guessing messages: “was this written by a woman?” Judge the content, not the source.
    - evolve2k 6y ago
      I think a key issue is that in any text we use incomplete indicators to determine legitimacy. Deciding on the legitimacy of an “opinion” comes down to meta ways of assessing; including the length of the text (HN rewards longer responses if they can maintain coherence and interest), the language style used (don’t make a technical mistake and use a technical term in the wrong context), the logic with which the argument is laid out, the emotional tone of the writer (No jokes on HN please). All of these are now gameable leading to say for risk for example of state actors shifting our collective opinions on a huge range of topics. I regularly make spelling mistakes in my posts and when I don’t correct them I loose points as I think the coherence and easy of reading goes down. GPT3 is unlikely to have the same issues.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

Is this a specific suggestion that you believe a significant fraction of news articles are written by bots? Is it a jokey way to repackage that tired everything-used-to-be-better cynicism? I really can't tell! And, by the way, journalism never was as matter-of-fact-only as everyone somehow assumes. Even you parents probably grew up in a Hunter S. Thompson-world. Your Grandparents had Hemingway who, despite the short sentences, didn't exactly crack the Shannon Limit in his war dispatches. There have always been different styles. Just read the headlines only and you're almost back to the 19th century, when news-tickers actually ticked, and every tick cost a dollar, and a dollar is an hourly wage. But I'd suggest actually understanding the purpose of narrative journalism and occasionally indulging in it. I've seen that complaint so often, and from a certain type of person almost exclusively, and I'm starting to wonder if it isn't some sort of psychological phenomenon, with guys (it's always men) fearing that anything less dry than a phone book rubs up on them, and their masculinity and rationality might suffer irreparable harm from exposure to yucky "feelings".

bun_at_work 6y ago
I think OP is just saying that articles written by bots are currently worse than articles written by people, while pondering the time in the future where articles written by bots are better than those written by people. I'm pretty sure OP is commenting on the quality of writing in general, not journalism... So...who's cynical here?
perl4ever 6y ago
>Is this a specific suggestion that you believe a significant fraction of news articles are written by bots? Financial news on lesser known public companies seems to be. It's easy to generate a story based on some numbers about the stock to parameterize it. Example (showing absolutely no understanding): "Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., belongs to Healthcare sector and Biotechnology industry. The company’s Market capitalization is $1.68B with the total Outstanding Shares of 32. On 03-09-2020 (Thursday), SRNE stock construct a change of -2.89 in a total of its share price and finished its trading at 7.06. Profitability Ratios (ROE, ROA, ROI): Looking into the profitability ratios of SRNE stock, an investor will find its ROE, ROA, ROI standing at -297.9%, -49.4% and -91.3%, respectively."