>What happens when internet dialogue itself is seen as unreliable as even being an indicator of "authentic" opinion? There was a discussion about that, recentl

>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.