4 ms·

> without a single mention of what that problem looks like today (hint: it was already a huge problem before ChatGPT). I see this counter-argument all the time

> without a single mention of what that problem looks like today (hint: it was already a huge problem before ChatGPT). I see this counter-argument all the time and it makes no sense to me. Yes, the web is already filled with SEO trash. How is that an argument that ChatGPT won't be bad? It's a force multiplier for garbage. The pre-existence of garbage does not at all invalidate the observation that producing more garbage more efficiently is even worse.

jerryzh 4y ago
because most garbage now are all ready produced by script. chatgpt will actually improve them
- argentier 4y ago
  Better garbage? More convincing bullshit? Are we winning?
brookst 4y ago
I also see this argument all the time: “New thing X is going to destroy the world!” “Actually it’s an extension of decades-long trends and may accelerate issues we already face” “Well it’s still bad, so any negative statement should be treated as true, even if it’s false!” The article didn’t say ChatGPT was making low quality content worse. It said, in as many words, that ChatGPT will create this problem.
soerxpso 4y ago
Search engines are already unusable for certain things that they used to be usable for. There's not really a such thing as "even more unusable." If I offer you an oven that doesn't get hot, that's not any better than an oven that makes things colder; you would not want either.
- dTal 4y ago
  I think we call that a "fridge", and they're quite popular actually...
sonofhans 4y ago
Yeah, exactly. It’s like saying, “What’s wrong with having a bus-sized nuclear-powered garbage cannon aimed at my head? I already have to take out my trash once a week.”
qup 4y ago
Because you already only view like 0.0001% of the web's content. Garbage is already filtered by algos. Those algos just have to keep up with chatGPT the same way they've already been keeping up with spam, the 95% of the web that is a dumpster fire, etc. Potentially it doesn't really become more difficult.
- munificent 4y ago
  > Those algos just have to keep up with chatGPT the same way they've already been keeping up with spam, the 95% of the web that is a dumpster fire, etc. That "just" is an arms race so fantastically difficult that the current leading business doing it has a market cap of $1.4 trillion. Those algos are, to date, some of the world's most sophisticated uses of AI. This is like observing that the howitzer was just invented and saying, "Don't worry, we've got chainmail armor."
  - qup 4y ago
    I don't think that's a keen analogy at all. We don't currently have chainmail. s/Google search/gmail spam filtering/youtube suggested algorithm is a dike holding back an ocean of shit. I'm not sure how to make an armor analogy, so let's just say it's really good armor. Also assuming you meant 1.4T=Alphabet, I cannot go along with your pretending that the 1.4 trillion dollar cap is a function of PageRank, nor can I pretend that it's remotely related to whether they can continue providing good results post-chatGPT. Why don't you think they can handle it?
    - munificent 4y ago
      I certainly hope they can handle it. But it looks to me that generative AI is posed to give a huge new weapon to bad actors and I absolutely think that's a bad thing, regardless of whether the good actors are somehow able to defend themselves from it.
- opportune 4y ago
  The difference is it takes me less than a second to immediately identify that content as garbage. And the places I frequent are good at stopping that garbage from getting on their website. Between the 0.0001% we care about and the 99% percent that’s automated trash, there’s a solid 1% of content churned out by actual humans at very low quality. Think about things like recipe fluff, “news” articles for noname organizations, and all the super low effort blogs giving Birds Eye view summaries of things like Kubernetes ripped right off some other intro material. ChatGPT produces straight up better and more informative content than those actual humans, and I am almost sure that it does so much faster and at a lower price. Actually, I think in some ways ChatGPT produces better content than most of the users on Reddit these days too
ElevenLathe 4y ago
On the other hand, the system for finding non-garbage content is the same: read publications and writers that you (and other real people you know) already like. If there are 10 good websites and 100 garbage ones, you probably find out about 2 or 3 of the good ones by word of mouth. If there are 10 good websites and 10^32 garbage ones, you will still be able to read those 2-3 good ones.
- munificent 4y ago
  The system for finding a needle in a sprinkling of hay is the same as finding a needle in a mountain-sized haystack but I would sure as hell prefer to be given the former task over the latter.
  - panagathon 4y ago
    This analogy does not work because we search a hay stack with our eyes, but we search for information with far more selective tools. You are comparing apples and oranges.
    - ElevenLathe 4y ago
      The smart way to find a needle in a haystack is to burn the haystack and pass the ashes in front of a magnet. I'm not sure what this analogy means for AI-generated SEO spam though.

jerryzh 4y ago

because most garbage now are all ready produced by script. chatgpt will actually improve them

argentier 4y ago
Better garbage? More convincing bullshit? Are we winning?

brookst 4y ago

I also see this argument all the time: “New thing X is going to destroy the world!” “Actually it’s an extension of decades-long trends and may accelerate issues we already face” “Well it’s still bad, so any negative statement should be treated as true, even if it’s false!” The article didn’t say ChatGPT was making low quality content worse. It said, in as many words, that ChatGPT will create this problem.

soerxpso 4y ago

Search engines are already unusable for certain things that they used to be usable for. There's not really a such thing as "even more unusable." If I offer you an oven that doesn't get hot, that's not any better than an oven that makes things colder; you would not want either.

dTal 4y ago
I think we call that a "fridge", and they're quite popular actually...

sonofhans 4y ago

Yeah, exactly. It’s like saying, “What’s wrong with having a bus-sized nuclear-powered garbage cannon aimed at my head? I already have to take out my trash once a week.”

qup 4y ago

Because you already only view like 0.0001% of the web's content. Garbage is already filtered by algos. Those algos just have to keep up with chatGPT the same way they've already been keeping up with spam, the 95% of the web that is a dumpster fire, etc. Potentially it doesn't really become more difficult.

munificent 4y ago
> Those algos just have to keep up with chatGPT the same way they've already been keeping up with spam, the 95% of the web that is a dumpster fire, etc. That "just" is an arms race so fantastically difficult that the current leading business doing it has a market cap of $1.4 trillion. Those algos are, to date, some of the world's most sophisticated uses of AI. This is like observing that the howitzer was just invented and saying, "Don't worry, we've got chainmail armor."
- qup 4y ago
  I don't think that's a keen analogy at all. We don't currently have chainmail. s/Google search/gmail spam filtering/youtube suggested algorithm is a dike holding back an ocean of shit. I'm not sure how to make an armor analogy, so let's just say it's really good armor. Also assuming you meant 1.4T=Alphabet, I cannot go along with your pretending that the 1.4 trillion dollar cap is a function of PageRank, nor can I pretend that it's remotely related to whether they can continue providing good results post-chatGPT. Why don't you think they can handle it?
  - munificent 4y ago
    I certainly hope they can handle it. But it looks to me that generative AI is posed to give a huge new weapon to bad actors and I absolutely think that's a bad thing, regardless of whether the good actors are somehow able to defend themselves from it.
opportune 4y ago
The difference is it takes me less than a second to immediately identify that content as garbage. And the places I frequent are good at stopping that garbage from getting on their website. Between the 0.0001% we care about and the 99% percent that’s automated trash, there’s a solid 1% of content churned out by actual humans at very low quality. Think about things like recipe fluff, “news” articles for noname organizations, and all the super low effort blogs giving Birds Eye view summaries of things like Kubernetes ripped right off some other intro material. ChatGPT produces straight up better and more informative content than those actual humans, and I am almost sure that it does so much faster and at a lower price. Actually, I think in some ways ChatGPT produces better content than most of the users on Reddit these days too

ElevenLathe 4y ago

On the other hand, the system for finding non-garbage content is the same: read publications and writers that you (and other real people you know) already like. If there are 10 good websites and 100 garbage ones, you probably find out about 2 or 3 of the good ones by word of mouth. If there are 10 good websites and 10^32 garbage ones, you will still be able to read those 2-3 good ones.

munificent 4y ago
The system for finding a needle in a sprinkling of hay is the same as finding a needle in a mountain-sized haystack but I would sure as hell prefer to be given the former task over the latter.
- panagathon 4y ago
  This analogy does not work because we search a hay stack with our eyes, but we search for information with far more selective tools. You are comparing apples and oranges.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    The smart way to find a needle in a haystack is to burn the haystack and pass the ashes in front of a magnet. I'm not sure what this analogy means for AI-generated SEO spam though.