5 ms·

I do not like that this exists, this shouldn't need to exist, AI or ML should not write articles, but they should just be a companion who helps you put things i

I do not like that this exists, this shouldn't need to exist, AI or ML should not write articles, but they should just be a companion who helps you put things into words if you struggle with it. I guess it is too much to ask for in the clickbait-y, monetization per-view driven internet.

mxuribe 3y ago
I agree fully with you! Unfortunately, law enforcement should not need to exist also...And yet, the incentives and behaviors of so many a$$holes in the world requires at least some mechanism to curb the bad stuff. (Not saying this not-bot effort is effective, but just saying that sometimes in life we need something even if not perfect...in order to keep some things in check). /sigh
- RealCodingOtaku 3y ago
  I don't think it is correct to compare my above opinion with law enforcement, it doesn't need to be "enforced", may be use it as a nice guideline for publishing stuff. If someone did write things purely with some algorithm, just annotate that it was not written by a human, so that people who don't want to read made-up/generated articles can just ignore it and move on. Doing it the reverse way does not make any sense to me, it is the same as treating all articles not having "written by human" label as generated content. -- in the "law enforcement" perspective, this is "guilty until proven innocent". What can and should be enforced is licence checks, like reusing things not in public domain should follow the license when publishing (looking at you Copilot).
  - mxuribe 3y ago
    > ...may be use it as a nice guideline for publishing stuff. Totally agree that guidelines/guidance is ideal rather than zooming all the way to the enforcement side of the spectrum. I think i must have been thinking of "community policing" in that there is positive guidance and engagement well before actual enforcement is conducted...and your comment reminded me of this...so fully agree with you there. :-) > ...If someone did write things purely with some algorithm, just annotate that it was not written by a human, so that people who don't want to read made-up/generated articles can just ignore it and move on... I've heard others state something similar in this context for AI-authored content (or not AI-authoered content as whatever the case might be), and I'm entirely in favor of this. Its conceptually similar - at least in my mind - to "organic" or "fair trade" (or similar) that exists for products, which i think is necessary and valuable to society.
bgun 3y ago
If you've ever searched for recipes online and had to read through ten pages of drivel before getting to the actual recipe at the bottom, you may have realized that just because articles are human-written doesn't make the article worthy of existing. SEO made sure of that long ago.
- RealCodingOtaku 3y ago
  Yes, and something bad happened does not make another bad thing good.
  - bgun 3y ago
    Where did I say or imply that it was good? What the AI-content-apocalypse Chicken Littles seem to constantly miss is that the incentive structure of the public web for the last 20+ years has rewarded trash content, so the public web is an SEO-driven garbage heap. The cost to produce trash content is already effectively zero, and AI will neither reverse nor repair that fact unless the underlying incentive structure changes.
    - RealCodingOtaku 3y ago
      I said that because SEO (or your entire reply) has nothing to do with either the OP or my post said, your reply sounded like an argument, sorry if I misinterpreted. But please don't change the topic to something irrelevant.

mxuribe 3y ago

I agree fully with you! Unfortunately, law enforcement should not need to exist also...And yet, the incentives and behaviors of so many a$$holes in the world requires at least some mechanism to curb the bad stuff. (Not saying this not-bot effort is effective, but just saying that sometimes in life we need something even if not perfect...in order to keep some things in check). /sigh

RealCodingOtaku 3y ago
I don't think it is correct to compare my above opinion with law enforcement, it doesn't need to be "enforced", may be use it as a nice guideline for publishing stuff. If someone did write things purely with some algorithm, just annotate that it was not written by a human, so that people who don't want to read made-up/generated articles can just ignore it and move on. Doing it the reverse way does not make any sense to me, it is the same as treating all articles not having "written by human" label as generated content. -- in the "law enforcement" perspective, this is "guilty until proven innocent". What can and should be enforced is licence checks, like reusing things not in public domain should follow the license when publishing (looking at you Copilot).
- mxuribe 3y ago
  > ...may be use it as a nice guideline for publishing stuff. Totally agree that guidelines/guidance is ideal rather than zooming all the way to the enforcement side of the spectrum. I think i must have been thinking of "community policing" in that there is positive guidance and engagement well before actual enforcement is conducted...and your comment reminded me of this...so fully agree with you there. :-) > ...If someone did write things purely with some algorithm, just annotate that it was not written by a human, so that people who don't want to read made-up/generated articles can just ignore it and move on... I've heard others state something similar in this context for AI-authored content (or not AI-authoered content as whatever the case might be), and I'm entirely in favor of this. Its conceptually similar - at least in my mind - to "organic" or "fair trade" (or similar) that exists for products, which i think is necessary and valuable to society.

bgun 3y ago

If you've ever searched for recipes online and had to read through ten pages of drivel before getting to the actual recipe at the bottom, you may have realized that just because articles are human-written doesn't make the article worthy of existing. SEO made sure of that long ago.

RealCodingOtaku 3y ago
Yes, and something bad happened does not make another bad thing good.
- bgun 3y ago
  Where did I say or imply that it was good? What the AI-content-apocalypse Chicken Littles seem to constantly miss is that the incentive structure of the public web for the last 20+ years has rewarded trash content, so the public web is an SEO-driven garbage heap. The cost to produce trash content is already effectively zero, and AI will neither reverse nor repair that fact unless the underlying incentive structure changes.
  - RealCodingOtaku 3y ago
    I said that because SEO (or your entire reply) has nothing to do with either the OP or my post said, your reply sounded like an argument, sorry if I misinterpreted. But please don't change the topic to something irrelevant.