5 ms·
Ironically, the 90s solution (human-curated link collections) to Internet-wide searches seems the easiest way out. It's relatively easy for a human to tell the
by ethbr0 4y ago
Ironically, the 90s solution (human-curated link collections) to Internet-wide searches seems the easiest way out.
It's relatively easy for a human to tell the difference between AI copy (as pollutes the web) and actual content.
It's also strange that Google et al. haven't built human-in-the-loop flagging of spam content into their search UX ("Is this site low quality?"). They could get around flag spam via reputation, given that Google knows identity for most of its users (because they're logged in or via IP across their properties).
Side note: In cursory research on current state, I came across the Chinese phrase "human flesh search engine" [0], which I wonder if it sounds as cyberpunk in the original Chinese.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine
- fmajid 4y ago> It's relatively easy for a human to tell the difference between AI copy (as pollutes the web) and actual content. No: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
- ethbr0 4y agoThe Sokal affair says more about the dynamics of academic publishing than it does about humans' ability to key to nuances. And "as pollutes the web" -> we're not talking about state of the art.
- concordDance 4y ago> It's relatively easy for a human to tell the difference between AI copy (as pollutes the web) and actual content. It is now. It definitely won't be when gpt gets popular.
- wizzwizz4 4y agoIt will be: GPT output is usually either garbage, repetitive, very wrong, subtly wrong, or inconsistent in writing style in a way humans aren't. (It sort of starts trying to say something different, in the "same style" as it started with, then switches style later.) When humans really can't tell the difference, well… https://xkcd.com/810/ https://xkcd.com/810/ seems appropriate.
- bitL 4y agoWithout revealing the origin, the latest models tested in private betas solve many of the points you mentioned.
- wizzwizz4 4y agoThis is why I'm not leaking all my discriminating heuristics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law strikes again.
- ethbr0 4y agoAt some point you also run up against the virus vs immune system endgame: it's evolutionarily inefficient to optimally outwit an adversarial system. Usually there exists a local maximum where you obtain most of the value with less-than-full effort. Sadly, the centralization of search directly cuts against that. I.e. outwitting Google search = $$$$ vs outwitting 1-or-4 equally-used search engines = $. :(
- concordDance 4y agoThe GPT output I've been making using openAI's chatpot is indistinguishable from what the bottom 70% of commentators put out. But an environment glutted with that content is also worthless. I read for the top 10% that has genuinely novel thoughts.
- xdennis 4y agoIn most cases, judging if something was created by GPT takes quite a long while. It's not a search result you can easily dismiss.
- vsareto 4y agohttps://i.imgur.com/kBGRUqL.jpg https://i.imgur.com/kBGRUqL.jpg