6 ms·
Announcement: AI generated answers are officially banned here
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- minimaxir 4y agoPer the revision history, there isn't any new info from the original story last month. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33882298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33882298
- Gigachad 4y agoI tried the "AI detector" page from that thread and pasted some of my ChatGPT outputs. ChatGPT came out at 94% human/real.
- breckenedge 4y agoYou mean this one? https://huggingface.co/openai-detector https://huggingface.co/openai-detector It’s trained to detect GPT-2.
- minimaxir 4y agoThe comment is referring to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237756 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237756 Although approaches to predicting GPT-2 similarity should be somewhat comparable with ChatGPT since they share the same tokenizer.
- TazeTSchnitzel 4y agoThese aren't the same story: one is about StackOverflow, one is about the English Language & Usage StackExchange.
- britneybitch 4y agoSounds fair to me. If someone wanted AI to answer their question, they would have asked ChatGPT directly.
- Gigachad 4y agoThe only real difference is those answers won't show in Google search. I imagine at some point someone will build an SEO spam site that generates both questions and answers to those questions to flood google with pages for every single thing you might search. Maybe you could get some kind of browser extension malware that scrapes the things people are searching to use as input.
- throw_nbvc1234 4y agoSurely google will implement their own version ChatGPT before this is an issue right?
- kibwen 4y ago> The only real difference is those answers won't show in Google search Give it a month before Google Search is overrun with AI-generated SEO spam (and a year before the next generation of AI has been trained on the aforementioned spam).
- noduerme 4y agoThis pretty much already exists... just google "alternatives for X software". They're mostly not GPT3 level but they're not far off.
- jalino23 4y agowhat's the tool they use to detect content specifically from chatgpt? or are they doing manual check to enforce this?
- Flammy 4y agoThis is a rule, not an announcement of automatic detection. That said some professors have used the tool mentioned here to check for Chat GPT sourced content in their student's submissions https://medium.com/geekculture/how-to-detect-if-an-essay-was-generated-by-openais-chatgpt-58bb8adc8461 https://medium.com/geekculture/how-to-detect-if-an-essay-was...
- TrackerFF 4y agoJust tested it out (https://huggingface.co/openai-detector https://huggingface.co/openai-detector), and I'm consistently getting 80%-50% "Fake" detection on my own writing.
- sys_64738 4y agoWhat happens when an AI becomes self-aware?
- eternalban 4y agoWhat makes you think an intelligent machine would choose software development, much less hang out at SE?
- dboreham 4y agoIt's going to be chilling on the roof.
- sys_64738 4y agoA self-aware AI could easily fork() itself to go off and do something else in parallel. It probably even supports userland Golang style co-routines.
- eternalban 4y agoEnergy. "What should I do with my energy budget?"
- smitty1e 4y agoSkynetGPT said that "..it became self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th." For a glance at the headlines that it has been inserting in the news, this seems plausible.
- godelski 4y agoI think this is mostly fair, but I think it could also be helpful to have AI generated "auto answers" that come with a warning. Like when you are typing in a question SE already tries to figure out if your question has been asked so there isn't a double posting. But what might also be nice is a stochastic answer that says something like "We have generated a possible answer, but be ware that this may not be accurate or to our community standards. If the answer is acceptable please accept and if it is not then reject and we will post your question." I'm sure someone could come up with a better phrasing. This would also de-incentivize people from posting AI generated answers and can make SE adapt to the changing environment rather than reject it outright (we do expect LLMs to get better, even if they are always stochastic parrots). Would this not be a better "middle" ground? Thoughts?
- phreack 4y agoI think this could be dangerous because a generated answer might be 100% wrong and look correct, yet the question asker might accept it nonetheless. The more this happens, the worse the entire site becomes. I tend to agree with the concept of preventing as much AI as possible, simply because it is much harder to distinguish wrong AI answers than organic ones. Just my opinion though.
- pretendscholar 4y agoI’ve used plausible but wrong human code too. I understand the difference is scale but it’s worth remembering that people write answers like this too
- noduerme 4y agoWhere scale really comes into play and gets scary is when bots can vote on other bots. Right now, most wrong human answers are pretty rapidly downvoted or corrected. But the supply of humans to make incorrect posts is limited and relatively balanced by the supply of humans to downvote them. Subtle errors in AI posts could become so widespread that it's impossible to counter them effectively.
- graderjs 4y agoThis is sort of bullshit. It's like saying "Witches are banned!" Now for my next trick, purchase my 100% Guaranteed Witch Detector! All Manner of Witches, Covens and Goblins Detected At No Extra Charge - Dial 555-Dewitch Now for Limited Time Complementary Offer. Hurry Only While Stocks Last. It's just another "StackExchange Mod Tool/Policy" with which to oppress the curious innocent masses. YoUr QuEsTiON is UnCLeAR--said the SPhynX. Then they press the button and you fall through the trap door into Jabba-the-Hutt's underthrone dungeon, of "closed as poorly worded / likely witchery" questions. Ugh... Will the evil domino of "No Bots Allowed" fall at HN next? "You sounds like a bot. Off with yer head!"
- drusepth 4y ago>Will the evil domino of "No Bots Allowed" fall at HN next? "You sounds like a bot. Off with yer head!" You jest, but people are already asking/accusing others of ChatGPT writing their human-written comments here on HN.
- graderjs 4y agoI know and I think that's bad. I asked dang if we could add the shallow lazy (but all-too common) dismissal, "Sounds like it was written by ChatGPT" to the list of banned behaviors. Did not hear back. :)
- PinkRidingHood 4y agoI actually think sites like HN would thrive in the AI era. There's 0 incentive to "farm Karma" here using AI. There's no point in being here except having a human conversation. I mean, unless somebody wants to manipulate people by training AI to spread crypto misinformation, but with the quality of ChatGPT at this point, it's going to be obvious and have the opposite effect.
- nl 4y agoI think you underestimate the detrimental effect a large quantity of low quality comments have on a forum. You saw this maybe 5-10 years ago when the "50c army" was at its height spamming specific topics. The good comments were just impossible to find because of all the other junk in there.
- drusepth 4y agoIt's always a shame when content is banned based on who wrote it (or didn't write it), rather than the actual content. I have a sneaking suspicion that in a few years time, sites that explicitly ban AI content will either reverse their decision or become a thing of the past. AI tools are very quickly becoming accessible to the masses and that lets the masses create more and/or higher-quality content -- and, IMO, that's a very good thing. But, obviously, established sites always struggle when they suddenly receive a large influx of new users/content, especially when they're at odds with (or completely oblivious to) the societal "norms" already established on those sites.
- noduerme 4y agoIt's getting quite hard to use basic search to find product review sites or software tutorials that aren't generated (usually badly) by some form of ML. If anything, it seems that people are turning away from search engines that uprank those. Until machine-written articles can be as nuanced and factually accurate (or at least as intriguingly opinionated for weird reasons) as something written by a human with hands-on experience of a product or software, I think they're no different from link mills in the pre-AI era. Which means search engines and sites like S.O. will have an increasing, not decreasing, financial interest in penalizing them.
- seanhunter 4y ago> It's always a shame when content is banned based on who wrote it (or didn't write it), rather than the actual content. Yes in theory. In practise in this case specifically the problem is often that it is very difficult to judge the quality of the actual content in and of itself. This is already a problem for stackoverflow, and you will see many highly-upvoted incorrect answers to questions with correct answers languishing. Having AI-generated plausible answers to everything would likely further muddy the waters.
- MollyRealized 4y ago[flagged]
- simpleintheory 4y agoWas this comment generated via ChatGPT? It sounds oddly like it for some reason.
- tannernelson 4y agoThis is fucking ChatGPT isn't it
- cypress66 4y agoIt almost surely is. The "fist, finally", the vague tips, the list of non controversial statements that support both viewpoints. The verbosity and lack of "character".
- Imnimo 4y ago>While the AI that generated it could be attributed, the nature of AI is that it breaks down existing writing and reconstructs it, so it's not that simple to name a source. This is a very weird and muddled description of what a language model does, let alone "AI" in general.
- ec109685 4y agoI can see their plagerism angle. After a lifetime of training to not post someone else’s work off as my own, it feels strange copying output of ChatGPT without sourcing it. Though I know ghostwriting and email templates are a thing so I should just get over it
- somenameforme 4y agoOne wonders what the overall impact of such systems will be on the internet as a whole. Most (all?) people don't really view things like movie/game/product reviews in the same as they did not that long ago, because there's a greater perception that those reviews are now less than authentic. So they have less value. What happens when internet dialogue itself is seen as unreliable as even being an indicator of "authentic" opinion? The obvious prediction is that the vast majority of sites will try to ban software generated text (while probably covertly allowing some for motivations from increasing user engagement to fulfilling government "requests"), but another equally obvious prediction is that such software will gradually become much more accessible, including being able to compile/tweak it at home, which means any effort to put the genie back in the bottle is certainly doomed to failure. We may be living through the end of the era of being able to believe that a blurb, like this one, was actually written by some human somewhere. The implications of this seem nearly as impossible to imagine, as going back 30 years ago to trying to imagine the implications of us being able to post and exchange text/data with each other on a global network. Interesting times we are living through, seemingly as always.
- mrtksn 4y ago>What happens when internet dialogue itself is seen as unreliable as even being an indicator of "authentic" opinion? There was a discussion about that, recently: AI: Markets for Lemons, and the Great Logging Off (278 comment) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34169051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34169051 Before the machines being able to generate cr*p that looks authentic at glance, the assumption was that the screen we look at had human generated patterns. Since this is no longer the case, it's nowhere nearly interesting. It actually had been losing value since these patters were generated for profit by army of people but with the arrival of the convincing AI generated text, the process has been greatly accelerated. ChatGPT is very cool when it generates output upon my request, similar technology used for pretending being written by people is toxic. The problem with these AI is that they look convincing but they don't know what they are talking about(like the worst kind of a person). This is not only problem because often its not accurate(people are wrong too all the time) but because it doesn't contain the core reason we interact with people: To change their life and opinions or make them do something. AI can pretend to be different person but all AI out here is the same machine trained on the same things so it's like talking to the same annoying person everywhere all the time. AI can become interesting once it's trained individually like a human AND our input becomes very influential on them(for example if we can get an AI trained Cairo be interested in French literature by telling is something fascinating about it). I guess the internet 2.0 will die off in spam and content will be created and shared in well moderated communities that can guarantee high ratio of people. WhatsApp or Telegram groups are very popular these days.
- xwdv 4y agoI wonder if this kind of ban will become common in most forums. I like to farm karma as a hobby, and part of my work involves harvesting a lot of the most upvoted comments in discussions and using them as training data to generate new comments that have high potential for upvotes. Eventually this AI can be deployed to build up new accounts that have high karma.
- jasfi 4y agoThis is a good thing. StackExchange no doubt provides a very large and useful resource for AI training on programming knowledge. Putting answers generated by AI into StackExchange would degrade the training and be quite useless. A separate resource is required for something like that.
- sourcecodeplz 4y agoIt's a silly rule. As someone mentioned in an answer there, what happens if someone copy-pastes an answer from a site he found on the Internet, and that site happens to have its content generated by AI?