3 ms·
> I suppose if the text is good and adds value and is factually correct then it does not matter if it's a human or an AI assistant who wrote it. The real issue
by iliane5 4y ago
> I suppose if the text is good and adds value and is factually correct then it does not matter if it's a human or an AI assistant who wrote it.
The real issue is the bad content. It’s perfectly acceptable for a human to publish a bad article/blog post but when language models do it it’s more or less spam.
- smeej 4y agoWhy is it less spammy just because a human wrote it? Plenty of humans produce spammy content.
- _Algernon_ 4y agoThe difference is the scale it allows. The amount of writing a human can generate is relatively limited, even if it is bad writing. GPT and its equivalents allow you to turn electricity into spam with minimal human intervention. That allows unprecedented levels of spam of sufficient quality to make it hard to detect without being examined more closely.
- krageon 4y agoIt is not, and most of the internet is already trash. We're speaking a lot about scale - but there are currently billions of humans and most of what they put online is already trash. It's not going to materially change - it is currently almost impossible to manually (on your own, at least) figure out what is good, and it will be impossible in the future as well.
- iliane5 4y agoSpam is spam whether made by a human or an AI. Good, valuable content is good whether made by a human or an AI. Bad or uninteresting content is spam if it’s being pumped out by an AI, but it’s a learning experience/personal expression if it’s made by a human. The difference is intent.