4 ms·

> Published content will be later used to train subsequent models, and being able to distinguish AI from human input may be very valuable going forward Every d

• lolinder 4y ago
  > Every discussion on AI take the example of ChatGPT and its inherent flaws but AI-generated content doesn't have to be dull and low quality. To get away from that we'd have to dramatically change our approach. The LLMs we have are trained on as much content as possible and essentially average out the style of their training data. What it writes reads like a B-grade high school essay because that is what you get when you average all the writing on the internet. It's not obvious to me that a creative approach that boils down to "pick the most likely next word given the context so far" can avoid sounding bland.
• layer8 4y ago
  It’s not clear when and how we would reach that level of quality. It doesn’t seem very relevant to the present state of affairs.
• DennisP 4y ago
  I don't think AI has to be low-quality for GP's concern to be valid. Humans get inputs from a large variety of sources, but if an AI's input is just text, then there's the potential for AI's input to mostly consist of its prior output. Iterate this, and its model could gradually diverge from the real world. The equivalent in human society is groupthink, where members of a subgroup get most of their information from the same subgroup and end up believing weird things. We can counter that by purposely getting inputs from outside of our group. For a text-model AI, this means identifying text that wasn't produced by AI, as the article suggests.
  • ben_w 4y ago
    Kinda? AI is often limited in ways we aren't, but it also trivially consumes more than we can in a lifetime. "Just text" in the case of GPT-3, but also it is trained on a token count exceeding the number of times an average synapse in a human brain will fire in a lifetime. It can still get biases from the training set; while I'm not sure if "group think" is quite the right phrase, it does seem to "want" everyone to get along even when asking it to create multiple characters engaged in a conflict. (Or perhaps that's just an artefact of it estimating that I want that). Reminds me — in a bad way — of Jules Verne's From The Earth to the Moon.
    • DennisP 4y ago
      Consuming and producing vast amounts of information is what makes the problem potentially worse than human groupthink. It enables the situation where AI is mostly consuming information produced by AI. That's the feedback loop I'm calling "groupthink." It could end up diverging from reality in the same way that chaotic functions diverge widely due to tiny differences in the initial conditions. The same problem exists if the AI consumes other types of information that it also produces. Humans are more grounded by having a presence in the physical world. Plus they draw on various sources considered more reliable, like formal training, scientific papers, textbooks, quality journalism, etc. If we want AI to be reliable, we'll need it to put the most weight on similar sources, and maybe even have some real-world presence with sensors and robots. Eventually AI will be able to produce new reliable information itself. But for that, it would have to recognize factual inconsistencies between sources and logical inconsistencies in arguments, and figure out how to resolve those, and do math correctly. I don't know what the state of the art is here, though ChatGPT tends to fail at basic arithmetic.
      • ben_w 4y ago
        > That's the feedback loop I'm calling "groupthink." While I think I get your point, I'd call that failure mode "believing it's own BS", and (perhaps I'm just being cynical here) I think humans collectively also have this failure mode. That said, there's an old saying: "To err is human, to really foul up requires a computer" — it is quite possible for a machine, with merely the same category of flaws we have and no others, to be really bad for the world just because it's really fast and doesn't sleep.
• iliane5 4y ago
  >One question that bother me is does it really matter? If AI-generated content is on par with Human-made or even better does it matter anymore that an AI generated it? > If an AI had written Mozart's Requiem would it lessen its interest, its beauty? I think it's about intent. Art is interesting and beautiful to us because there is an undeniable human intent in creating it and a vision behind it. ChatGPT and DALL-E are pretty cool but I think until AI get it's own intent and goals it's pretty fair to try to separate human art and AI art.
  • int_19h 4y ago
    I've seen plenty of images generated by Midjourney and Stable Diffusion that I would describe as "interesting" and/or "beautiful". For that matter, nature can obviously be both, and it doesn't have intentional design nor vision behind it. So it's clear that it's not a universal requirement.
    • iliane5 4y ago
      Sure, I didn't word it in the best way. What I meant is that something that is "interesting" and/or "beautiful" is just artistic, such as nature as you pointed out. For it to be art, there has to be intent behind it, otherwise it's just aesthetically pleasing. My point was that art is more than just something that's aesthetically pleasing.
      • int_19h 4y ago
        I would say that art is something that is deliberately created to be aesthetically pleasing. If it's done by an AI that was designed with intent to generate such things, I would consider them art, as well. But if we're talking about definitions, surely what really matters is how most in society understand "art"? Now suppose we went around showing Midjourney-generated pics to random people on the streets and asking them whether it's art or not; how many do you think would say "no", or ask questions about artist's intent before giving an answer?
        • 4y ago
• htrp 4y ago
  > If an AI had written Mozart's Requiem would it lessen its interest, its beauty? Will be a great question when we can't tell the difference.