3 ms·

The information ecosystem has been in pretty bad shape for some decades now: > "The volume of AI-generated content could overtake human-generated content on th

The information ecosystem has been in pretty bad shape for some decades now: > "The volume of AI-generated content could overtake human-generated content on the order of years, and that could really disrupt our information ecosystem. When that happens, the trust-default is undermined, and it can decrease trust in each other." I see no problems here. If people don't trust the pronouncements of other humans blindly, but instead are motivated to do the footwork to check statements and assertions independently, then it'll result in a much better system overall. Media outlets have been lying to the public for decades about important matters using humans to generate the dishonest content, so have politicians, and so have a wide variety of institutions. What's needed to counter the ability of humans or AI to lie without consequences or accountability is more public education in methods of testing assertions for truthfulness - such as logic (is the claim self-consistent?), research (is the information backed up by other reputable sources?) and so on.

withinboredom 4y ago
“Lying to the public for decade” I think you meant since forever. I’m sure propoganda has existed since someone could yell loudly in a town square.
- btilly 4y ago
  Indeed. Shakespeare's portrayals of Macbeth and Richard III are infamous examples.
itake 4y ago
> but instead are motivated This is a very generous statement. Clearly our current system is broken (e.g. misinformation campaigns) and people have not been motivated fact-check themselves.
14 4y ago
That might work in a narrow set of circumstances where data can be published to trusted sources for one to read and say yes this information is true. But in much broader situations AI can spit out disinformation in many locations and it will be information that is not testable like celebrity news and it will be nearly impossible for one to verify truthfulness.
arka2147483647 4y ago
> I see no problems here I see differently. You have a news. There is text. Ai generated. There is an image. Ai generated. There is a reference to a convincing study. Ai generated. You try to use your logic textbook to process this. That too is ai generated. What do you base your trust on? Do you distrust everything? How would you know what to take seriously, when ALL could be AI generated.
- analog31 4y ago
  You ask an Old Person. (Disclosure: Old person). The "old person" could also be a database of human knowledge that was gathered before the singularity.
  - vasco 4y ago
    Even if this was a reasonable answer, which it is not, it would only work for one human generation after which there are no more people who lived before the AI wave.
    - jvm___ 4y ago
      I want to buy a physical Encyclopedia Britannica for just this reason. All our historical records are becoming digitized, and AI can now make convincingly fake history characters, images and video. The actual history is going to get swamped and people will have a very hard time determining if a historic fact actually happened or if it was an AI fever dream.
    - mattpallissard 4y ago
      > Even if this was a reasonable answer, which it is not. I find this fairly reasonable, albeit slow. I run around with several gentleman that are old enough to be my grandfather. They usually have pretty good hot takes, even on things that aren't in their field. > it would only work for one human generation There are countless examples of oral tradition passed down accurately. Safe places for tsunamis in Japan, the creation of crater lake, etc
toddmorey 4y ago
And it's not binary. It's now going to be a spectrum from human <---> AI generated. But just like all digital communication now involves a computer for typing / speaking, all communication will very rapidly involve AI. To me it feels almost meaningless to try to detect if AI was involved.
stonemetal12 4y ago
While I mostly agree, I think the bar has been raised on how easy it is to make believeable fake proof. We now have AI generated images that can reasonably pass the smell test. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/ai-platform-allegedly-bans-journalist-over-fake-trump-arrest-images/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/ai-platform-alle...

withinboredom 4y ago

“Lying to the public for decade” I think you meant since forever. I’m sure propoganda has existed since someone could yell loudly in a town square.

btilly 4y ago
Indeed. Shakespeare's portrayals of Macbeth and Richard III are infamous examples.

itake 4y ago

> but instead are motivated This is a very generous statement. Clearly our current system is broken (e.g. misinformation campaigns) and people have not been motivated fact-check themselves.

14 4y ago

That might work in a narrow set of circumstances where data can be published to trusted sources for one to read and say yes this information is true. But in much broader situations AI can spit out disinformation in many locations and it will be information that is not testable like celebrity news and it will be nearly impossible for one to verify truthfulness.

arka2147483647 4y ago

> I see no problems here I see differently. You have a news. There is text. Ai generated. There is an image. Ai generated. There is a reference to a convincing study. Ai generated. You try to use your logic textbook to process this. That too is ai generated. What do you base your trust on? Do you distrust everything? How would you know what to take seriously, when ALL could be AI generated.

analog31 4y ago
You ask an Old Person. (Disclosure: Old person). The "old person" could also be a database of human knowledge that was gathered before the singularity.
- vasco 4y ago
  Even if this was a reasonable answer, which it is not, it would only work for one human generation after which there are no more people who lived before the AI wave.
  - jvm___ 4y ago
    I want to buy a physical Encyclopedia Britannica for just this reason. All our historical records are becoming digitized, and AI can now make convincingly fake history characters, images and video. The actual history is going to get swamped and people will have a very hard time determining if a historic fact actually happened or if it was an AI fever dream.
  - mattpallissard 4y ago
    > Even if this was a reasonable answer, which it is not. I find this fairly reasonable, albeit slow. I run around with several gentleman that are old enough to be my grandfather. They usually have pretty good hot takes, even on things that aren't in their field. > it would only work for one human generation There are countless examples of oral tradition passed down accurately. Safe places for tsunamis in Japan, the creation of crater lake, etc

toddmorey 4y ago

And it's not binary. It's now going to be a spectrum from human <---> AI generated. But just like all digital communication now involves a computer for typing / speaking, all communication will very rapidly involve AI. To me it feels almost meaningless to try to detect if AI was involved.

stonemetal12 4y ago

While I mostly agree, I think the bar has been raised on how easy it is to make believeable fake proof. We now have AI generated images that can reasonably pass the smell test. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/ai-platform-allegedly-bans-journalist-over-fake-trump-arrest-images/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/ai-platform-alle...