4 ms·

It'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 fe

It'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 ago
It'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.

noduerme 4y ago

It'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.