3 ms·
I'm in my 40s, so I'm acutely aware of the risk of turning into a "get off my lawn" curmudgeon, so I will only say this: I am glad that I saved a dump of Wikipe
by LeoPanthera 4y ago
I'm in my 40s, so I'm acutely aware of the risk of turning into a "get off my lawn" curmudgeon, so I will only say this: I am glad that I saved a dump of Wikipedia a few months ago, because soon it will probably be impossible to distinguish human-written content from AI.
- pmoriarty 4y agoIf it's indistinguishable, then how does it matter who/what it was written by?
- LeoPanthera 4y agoBecause I am far less likely to trust encyclopedic content written by an AI, which can lie so convincingly that it does not know that it is lying. I have even seen it generating fictional source references that are hard to verify. I just don't trust it.
- pmoriarty 4y agoIt takes more than merely being human to earn my trust.
- jxy 4y agoMaybe we just need a better attribution, so people can decide on the level of objective confidence. If you live in the US, it is already difficult to avoid seeing and listening to real people lie publicly, which may take journalists a long time to verify. Put it in another way, we might just see late night talk show hosts start parodying $next_gen_llm instead of real people, if this $next_gen_llm started affecting people in a more profound way.
- aortega 4y ago>can lie so convincingly that it does not know that it is lying. A human can also lie convincingly. The problem with AI is that you can do it massively.
- mellosouls 4y ago[flagged]
- ricketycricket 4y agoYou mean the AI content trained on human input?
- realce 4y agothe irrational worshiping is really starting off quickly
- mellosouls 4y agoYes, of course I mean that, and we've seen how flawed it is when it is either gamed by the left (during training and release control) or right (post release trolling). I'm taking it as a given that we will have reasonably robust solutions to that by the time it is able to compete with Wikipedia - in which case, for the reasons given it will offer a positive distinguishing input, though I suspect it will be complementary for a time. Perhaps we'll see a neutrality-bot at some point, automatically flagging some of the problematic behaviour that undermines Wikipedia...
- SamBam 4y agoI'm sorry, how will a LLM trained on human writing look less human? We've already seen that, without very restrictive lockdowns by researchers, LLMs will display all the worst kinds of human traits. Why would this be different?
- mellosouls 4y agoReplied to a sibling comment.
- akrymski 4y agoHave you every tried to edit the Wikipedia? Spamming it is incredible hard for humans (whether AI is involved or not) because it has a pretty good system of moderators based on the social trust model. The only way to bypass it is to effectively bribe a mod, similarly to how spammers pay for backlinks to increase their PageRank. This is what prevents it from turning into a spam farm, not the lack of text content.