5 ms·

Google detects and downranks pages that have mostly AI copy. And from what I can tell, OpenAI are working on watermarking their generated content so other platf

Google detects and downranks pages that have mostly AI copy. And from what I can tell, OpenAI are working on watermarking their generated content so other platforms can detect it automatically.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
> OpenAI are working on watermarking their generated content so other platforms can detect it automatically So when is this technology gonna be advanced enough for us mere mortals to run it on our own computers with our own models free from pointless restrictions that exist purely to appease threatened stakeholders?
- xenospn 4y ago
  Read up on the datacenter OpenAI had to spin-up within Azure in order to train GPT3. A little out of reach for now - but in 10 years, who knows.
  - jchw 4y ago
    To be fair, training is a lot more intensive than inference. Though if open source models are any indication, the big issue is actually VRAM requirements.
- jwie 4y ago
  The restrictions are not pointless. People shouldn't have to endure AI generated spam, no matter how well-formatted. I can opt out of robocalls, email spam, programmatic texts, even take legal action against people who make them outside the law. Similar legal protections should exist to protect people from AI spam. If there's a good technical solution to this problem then the laws banning it become less necessary.
- macrolime 4y ago
  According to this link that was posted on hn a couple days ago it currently costs around 10 million dollars to train something like GPT-3. https://www.nextplatform.com/2022/12/01/counting-the-cost-of-training-large-language-models/ https://www.nextplatform.com/2022/12/01/counting-the-cost-of...
  - Keyframe 4y ago
    Trained on what though? Procuring training material ain't no trivial feat., in-fact it might be even more elaborate to do. This is where Google has home advantage. They have their own copy of the internet.
cookie_monsta 4y ago
If they can find a way of watermarking text while making it still coherent that will be even more impressive than the original application
- ZephyrBlu 4y ago
  Really? With invisible characters I wouldn't have thought watermarking text would be a massive achievement.
  - cookie_monsta 4y ago
    Heh, yeah that will be a fun little game of cat and mouse to watch
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      I'd say the arms race of AI- detection/detection-avoidance is inevitable. But it seems we're a way off given how bad common spam detection tools are today (I mean, it's likely that a lot of spam is written using detection-avoidance tech but that seems to make it even more obviously spam to a human reader...)
      - cookie_monsta 4y ago
        I think gmail's spam filter is so close that it feels like a solved problem. But of course it has a lot of other indicators to look at than just the email body text and spam tends to revolve around a fairly predictable range of topics. None of that would apply in a "was this webpage written by a robot?" algorithm
        wizofaus 4y ago
        I just logged in to check my gmail account (I don't use it that often) - and literally every single message in the last few months is spam, none were flagged as such. I didn't even need to open the message to determine that they were spam, simply the combination of subject line and sender name/address were enough. So why is AI so bad at this? (The sender name for virtually every single message is either "Lowe's winner", "Kohl's winner", CVS or some big US chain that doesn't even operate in my country. The actual email addresses are even more obviously dodgy. There is one genuine message from DELL asking about a survey related to a product I ordered from them many many months ago. I basically use gmail as my spam trap...I get far far less spam on my hotmail account that's my regular one, but the ones that do get through don't even pass the most basic tests, which I don't understand). Edit: actually the bigger problem with hotmail is false positives. I just tried ChatGPT out on one such example, and it definitely did a better job: 'It is unlikely that an email beginning with the text "Hi All, Here are a few things you need to know for the Christmas concert" is spam.' I tried a few others (both genuine and incorrectly-identified spam) and for each attempt ChatGPT got it right just from the subject/first paragraph. With a bit more questioning I could also get it to identify messages that were "genuine" marketing promotions (from companies I've bought products from and agreed to receiving such messages - which hotmail still identifies as junk)
jtxt 4y ago
More info on this would be nice. To me it makes sense that openai would store all input and output and could make something like a plagiarism checker page/API to search and see if openai generated that or very similar content... Another service they could sell to teachers and such.
slig 4y ago
Too bad they can't detect classic SPAM anymore. The spam filter that was working back in 2004 seems broken nowadays.
kodejuice 4y ago
This wouldn't really be a problem, since you can just use a paraphrasing tool to change the text, and essentially remove any underlying watermark

Google detects and downranks pages that have mostly AI copy. And from what I can tell, OpenAI are working on watermarking their generated content so other platforms can detect it automatically.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> OpenAI are working on watermarking their generated content so other platforms can detect it automatically So when is this technology gonna be advanced enough for us mere mortals to run it on our own computers with our own models free from pointless restrictions that exist purely to appease threatened stakeholders?

xenospn 4y ago
Read up on the datacenter OpenAI had to spin-up within Azure in order to train GPT3. A little out of reach for now - but in 10 years, who knows.
- jchw 4y ago
  To be fair, training is a lot more intensive than inference. Though if open source models are any indication, the big issue is actually VRAM requirements.
jwie 4y ago
The restrictions are not pointless. People shouldn't have to endure AI generated spam, no matter how well-formatted. I can opt out of robocalls, email spam, programmatic texts, even take legal action against people who make them outside the law. Similar legal protections should exist to protect people from AI spam. If there's a good technical solution to this problem then the laws banning it become less necessary.
macrolime 4y ago
According to this link that was posted on hn a couple days ago it currently costs around 10 million dollars to train something like GPT-3. https://www.nextplatform.com/2022/12/01/counting-the-cost-of-training-large-language-models/ https://www.nextplatform.com/2022/12/01/counting-the-cost-of...
- Keyframe 4y ago
  Trained on what though? Procuring training material ain't no trivial feat., in-fact it might be even more elaborate to do. This is where Google has home advantage. They have their own copy of the internet.

cookie_monsta 4y ago

If they can find a way of watermarking text while making it still coherent that will be even more impressive than the original application

ZephyrBlu 4y ago
Really? With invisible characters I wouldn't have thought watermarking text would be a massive achievement.
- cookie_monsta 4y ago
  Heh, yeah that will be a fun little game of cat and mouse to watch
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    I'd say the arms race of AI- detection/detection-avoidance is inevitable. But it seems we're a way off given how bad common spam detection tools are today (I mean, it's likely that a lot of spam is written using detection-avoidance tech but that seems to make it even more obviously spam to a human reader...)
    - cookie_monsta 4y ago
      I think gmail's spam filter is so close that it feels like a solved problem. But of course it has a lot of other indicators to look at than just the email body text and spam tends to revolve around a fairly predictable range of topics. None of that would apply in a "was this webpage written by a robot?" algorithm
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        I just logged in to check my gmail account (I don't use it that often) - and literally every single message in the last few months is spam, none were flagged as such. I didn't even need to open the message to determine that they were spam, simply the combination of subject line and sender name/address were enough. So why is AI so bad at this? (The sender name for virtually every single message is either "Lowe's winner", "Kohl's winner", CVS or some big US chain that doesn't even operate in my country. The actual email addresses are even more obviously dodgy. There is one genuine message from DELL asking about a survey related to a product I ordered from them many many months ago. I basically use gmail as my spam trap...I get far far less spam on my hotmail account that's my regular one, but the ones that do get through don't even pass the most basic tests, which I don't understand). Edit: actually the bigger problem with hotmail is false positives. I just tried ChatGPT out on one such example, and it definitely did a better job: 'It is unlikely that an email beginning with the text "Hi All, Here are a few things you need to know for the Christmas concert" is spam.' I tried a few others (both genuine and incorrectly-identified spam) and for each attempt ChatGPT got it right just from the subject/first paragraph. With a bit more questioning I could also get it to identify messages that were "genuine" marketing promotions (from companies I've bought products from and agreed to receiving such messages - which hotmail still identifies as junk)

jtxt 4y ago

More info on this would be nice. To me it makes sense that openai would store all input and output and could make something like a plagiarism checker page/API to search and see if openai generated that or very similar content... Another service they could sell to teachers and such.

slig 4y ago

Too bad they can't detect classic SPAM anymore. The spam filter that was working back in 2004 seems broken nowadays.

kodejuice 4y ago

This wouldn't really be a problem, since you can just use a paraphrasing tool to change the text, and essentially remove any underlying watermark