4 ms·
AI for me, not for thee. Google shouldn't be the arbiter of what's ok or not on the internet. They use AI to take away all human recourse with the company but
by ohashi 5y ago
AI for me, not for thee.
Google shouldn't be the arbiter of what's ok or not on the internet. They use AI to take away all human recourse with the company but want to tell others not to use it? It's a pretty laughable position. Good luck trying to detect GPT-3 and the like when you compare with non native speakers of languages. Are you suddenly going to just block them too?
If an AI can generate high quality content, why is that any less than human generated content. Human generate a ton of trash content, it's not inherently better.
Those same models on copilot are generating useful and often good code for me on a daily basis. If someone told me it's not OK to use any copilot generated code as unethical/wrong I'd laugh in their face. It's basically saving me a google search to find snippets/examples of things I wasn't sure of.
Maybe that's the threat? If we have access to AI directly (ala copilot) then I am googling less.
- shadowgovt 5y agoThat's the point. If it is detectable, it'll get downranked for being low-quality.
- hackernewds 5y agoWhich seems fair. I do not want to be bombarded by AI generated media and content that can be created at infinite volume and speed. Google is taking a massive step here for the good.
- jimmaswell 5y agoI've seen a few AI generated pages in top results that felt like having a stroke trying to read. I hope these can be eliminated.
- derefr 5y agoI mean, I don’t know about you, but I’d be fine with an infinite stream of AI generated media… once it’s no worse than human-authored content. Which is where Google is setting the bar. If the AI can generate articles that are as good as the ones humans are writing, why not index those? Of course, this suggests a corollary: that Google shouldn’t be indexing the output of content farms where the writing and derivative-ness is strictly worse than what you’d get from an AI article generator. :)
- YawningAngel 5y agoMost blogspam written by humans is garbage, why not set the bar higher?
- deevolution 5y agoWhat about high quality ai content? What if someday the content generated by ai is actually more useful/higher quality than the human generated content we just shoot outself in the foot because it's ai generated. Seems discriminatory to me!
- shadowgovt 5y agoThen someday Google can change its policy again. ... Let's start with some demonstrations of good AI-generated content being down-sampled by this policy.
- oefrha 5y ago> What if someday the content generated by ai is actually more useful/higher quality than the human generated content Mission. Fucking. Accomplished. https://xkcd.com/810/ https://xkcd.com/810/
- copperx 5y agoIn the future, "search" engines will generate the content for you on the fly. No need to index anything.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- joe_the_user 5y agoIf someone told me it's not OK to use any copilot generated code as unethical/wrong I'd laugh in their face. It's basically saving me a google search to find snippets/examples of things I wasn't sure of. I'm not concerned with ethics but both Google-search and co-pilot are some version of processed human generated content and I think problem both have is how to get the content for cheap and still sell processed version. Google pays for it's stuff by advertising and . Co-pilot just munged the contents of github and didn't pay anything. But if AI-generators continue the path of scanning free content and selling the processed result, someone will start working on how to spam them as well - there's a project for you, upload a whole bunch of general purpose code to github with spam in the comments.
- tqi 5y agoCan we retire "[BLANK] for me, not for thee"? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30972356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30972356
- newswasboring 5y agoWhy? It's a valid criticism, right?
- cjsplat 5y agoJust call them bleeping hypocrites if that is what you mean. Pseudo biblical language to provide an illusion of authority is stomach turning.
- dhzhzjsbevs 5y agoSpeech police complaining about others using techniques to feign authority on things they themselves have no authority over is pretty fucking hypocritical.
- newswasboring 5y agoSo what you are saying is, tone choice for me but not for thee
- tqi 5y agoIt's closer to whataboutism than a valid criticism. In this particular case doesn't address at all whether AI generated content should be downranked in search results (probably should since it is mostly low quality clickbait, the same way human generated listicle trash is also low quality clickbait). The fact that Google uses AI is irrelevant.
- Too 5y agoUsing AI generally isn’t a problem for google. I don’t care if they use it to sort my calendar. The dilemma here is that they use AI to create and put their own auto generated content above search results. Like all those countless examples where someone got a picture of a criminal mashed up with their own Wikipedia page because they happen to have the same family name. [1] Disregarding the shame factor of this, it’s showcasing low quality auto generated content created only to put the google name above others in search results. Same applies to those auto generated opening hours of restaurants etc, which are incorrect all of the time. Again low quality ai content put above others and bypassing page rank. 1. Ex https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27622100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27622100
- narag 5y agoThey use AI to take away all human recourse with the company but want to tell others not to use it? I can't wait to see how they will manage false positives. Now not only you can't contact a human, you can't prove you're one.
- ummwhat 5y agoI'm ok with filtering humans who fail the Turing test.
- BlueTemplar 5y agoThe issue here is that the Turing test is getting ever harder - aren't you afraid of the time when you are going to start regularly failing it yourself ?
- nonstickcoating 5y agoFurthemore: Did you think about what this means for people with e.g. serious cognitive disability? Your statement argues for prohibiting them from participating in public discourse wholesale.
- ummwhat 5y agoIn the maximal case where bots are indistinguishable from humans, by definition the odds of failing the Turing test are 50/50. A coin flip per comment. Yeah, I can put up with that. Realistically, I don't think I will ever start regularly failing it. Go ahead, call it arrogance or hubris or whatever. I've looked at the originality and predictability metrics on a large corpus of my online comments. Let's just say, you won't be replacing me with gpt-3 or similar.
- BlueTemplar 5y agoThis is diverging from the strict definition of "Turing Test", but I've had the bad luck of having my YouTube comments silently deleted (or worse, shadowbanned), and it's so infuriating (because it seemingly punishes some of 3 ways in which I've tried to make my comments better), that I mostly stopped posting them. Not to mention that in cases where it results in a direct ban, you better hope that odds are better than 50/50 ! (New users are particularly susceptible.)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]