3 ms·

When the internet is flooded with crappy AI content, people will move to walled gardens even more, since they can afford the cost of moderation.

johlits 4y ago
All it takes is one bot to get in the walled garden though and it is the same.
- evgen 4y ago
  It is not exactly the same though. To torture this metaphor a bit more, it is easier to weed and prune a walled garden than it is to maintain a commons. Effective gatekeeping makes it a bit harder or more expensive for attackers to join communities and this also makes moderation of these invaders more costly for them, so they have to spend more time/effort to maintain the masquerade if they do not want to waste the expenditure required to enter the community.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
heartbeats 4y ago
LinkedIn is pretty walled, and it's a cesspool. What prevents Brian Jones, a 100% legitimate human being, from pasting in a few GPT-generated posts to improve his posting activity? At the end of the day, you have to filter on quality.
- hiidrew 4y ago
  I wonder if there could be some standard at the device level with copy/paste and signing/verifying that you did not or the source from where you did copy from?
  - heartbeats 4y ago
    Well, what if I generate some nice GPT-based content on my personal computer, look at it on the screen, and then re-type it by hand on my "protected" smartphone? All you end up doing is implementing another ham-fisted DRM scheme that ultimately accomplishes nothing but makes the pointy-haired bosses happy. Solving social problems like this with "moar technology" is, in the general case, not a recipe for success, and I don't see why this would be any different.
    - hiidrew 4y ago
      true, such an interesting problem. you're right, maybe more like a social solution than strictly tech.
- __d 4y ago
  Which is hard, when you're looking for an answer: something you don't know. How do you tell what's "quality" and what's not? LinkedIn is actually better off than most sites, because it already has a "people you actually know" filter built in. If you've connect to randoms, you'll get random content. But if you connect only to people you know, you have a decent filter. And if people you know start posting rubbish, block them. Any pseudoymous sites are in a worse position, because you can't tell a person from a bot.

johlits 4y ago

All it takes is one bot to get in the walled garden though and it is the same.

evgen 4y ago
It is not exactly the same though. To torture this metaphor a bit more, it is easier to weed and prune a walled garden than it is to maintain a commons. Effective gatekeeping makes it a bit harder or more expensive for attackers to join communities and this also makes moderation of these invaders more costly for them, so they have to spend more time/effort to maintain the masquerade if they do not want to waste the expenditure required to enter the community.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

heartbeats 4y ago

LinkedIn is pretty walled, and it's a cesspool. What prevents Brian Jones, a 100% legitimate human being, from pasting in a few GPT-generated posts to improve his posting activity? At the end of the day, you have to filter on quality.

hiidrew 4y ago
I wonder if there could be some standard at the device level with copy/paste and signing/verifying that you did not or the source from where you did copy from?
- heartbeats 4y ago
  Well, what if I generate some nice GPT-based content on my personal computer, look at it on the screen, and then re-type it by hand on my "protected" smartphone? All you end up doing is implementing another ham-fisted DRM scheme that ultimately accomplishes nothing but makes the pointy-haired bosses happy. Solving social problems like this with "moar technology" is, in the general case, not a recipe for success, and I don't see why this would be any different.
  - hiidrew 4y ago
    true, such an interesting problem. you're right, maybe more like a social solution than strictly tech.
__d 4y ago
Which is hard, when you're looking for an answer: something you don't know. How do you tell what's "quality" and what's not? LinkedIn is actually better off than most sites, because it already has a "people you actually know" filter built in. If you've connect to randoms, you'll get random content. But if you connect only to people you know, you have a decent filter. And if people you know start posting rubbish, block them. Any pseudoymous sites are in a worse position, because you can't tell a person from a bot.