19 ms·

>If they don't employ writers, then who is going to be writing the magazine? Well there is always chatGPT

by ourlordcaffeine 3y ago

elektrontamer 3y ago
That's what I really fear about LLMs, good content is going to get drowned out by endless bot drivel.
- intothemild 3y ago
  I think this wont be sustainable, like, how long til until people stop reading LLM generated content?
- jvm___ 3y ago
  I keep re-reading and referencing this article as it lays out how the human vs AI internet landscape is likely to shake out. https://maggieappleton.com/ai-dark-forest https://maggieappleton.com/ai-dark-forest
- pmoriarty 3y ago
  > That's what I really fear about LLMs, good content is going to get drowned out by endless bot drivel. I anticipate the opposite. Already AI content is better than crappy human writers. In the medium term AI content is going to be better than most human writers (it arguably already is in some limited cases). In the long term it may compete with the best human writers. Some humans are too full of themselves, thinking they're so exceptional, while computers are proving time and again that's not so. The evidence is starting us in the face.
  - russian-troll 3y ago
    >In the long term it may compete with the best human writers. AIs lack connection with real world. This is important if we speak about NatGeo. >The evidence is starting us in the face. AIs generate average texts. It is admittedly cool. But I think it just shows how much human drivel is out there. Funny thing is that people optimized texts for search engines in attempts to hack ranking black boxes. Hence ML AI was the reason for bullshit for quite some time long before LLMs.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    AI content today is better than the worst human writers, but only because the worst human writers are so terrible. (Think of you trying to write an essay in a language that you’ve only studied for 3 months bad.) That doesn’t mean that LLMs are on a course to inevitably surpass the 90th percentile human writer (which is what most full-time writers presumably are). I may be a Luddite here, but I don’t expect that in my young kids’ lifetime.
    - Guthur 3y ago
      In my opinion LLM will never be able to replicate the human experience as it's solely based on language which in itself is only a poor facsimile of consciousness. If writing is our best attempt to share our personal psychic experience then all LLM can be is fragments of those experiences and can not in itself experience the presence of being that is human.
  - versteegen 3y ago
    (I'll note you wrote "AI content" not "LLMs", before anyone gets the wrong idea.) > Some humans are too full of themselves, thinking they're so exceptional, while computers are proving time and again that's not so. The evidence is starting us in the face. Thanks for daring to state this unpopular opinion. I completely agree that humans have a very poor (and hence inflated) idea of what they are good at, because they have only had animals and (recently) machines to compare themselves to, plus these opinions formed long ago are a very firmly held cultural memory (e.g. literary and movie tropes, religion). Creativity being IMO one of the most badly misclaimed abilities.
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    >The evidence is starting us in the face. It sure is!
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    8000 token essays are, but beyond that it can't keep coherence.
  - taylodl 3y ago
    The AI produced content I've seen writes like a competent 5th grader. National Geographic wasn't being written by competent 5th graders. I do think people are going to get tired of AI-produced this and AI-produced that - they're going to crave content created by humans. At least for some things. There may be a place for AI-created content that we love. That is this whole thing might be a false dilemma, it's not AI or human created content, it's AI and human created content. We'll find out which is better at what.
    - thesnide 3y ago
      I imaging that in a not-so-distant future we'll have some "Genuine Human Generated Certification" It has happened the same way in every areas where you have rampant counterfeit or simply cheaper competition. As even if LLM can generate greate quality content, it will always be even cheaper to mass produce low quality. And once you cross the Rubicon of not being certified, it is just a matter of time that capitalism/greed will make it a race to the bottom.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      > The AI produced content I've seen writes like a competent 5th grader. National Geographic wasn't being written by competent 5th graders. Well, over half of Americans read below a 6th grade reading level[1], so it seems like AI content is satisfactory, given the median reading skills. 1: https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy
      - wasimanitoba 3y ago
        National Geographic's audience might not tend toward the lowest denominator. There's a good chance that people who read that magazine have a higher average reading level.
      - Incipient 3y ago
        That's not a positive point for llms. That's just a horrific indictment on how badly the US education has failed. Past tense. It has failed. It's not failing.
  - grever 3y ago
    [dead]
  - ForOldHack 3y ago
    You are using an AI to write this? Or do a vast majority of actual humans rely on crappy writing? You do make a good point. I'll shove my next few wikipedia edits down an AIs gullet... *This was written with an AI, and I told it to be spicy, salty and smarmy.
- another2another 3y ago
  The other possible scenario is that people who want to create new content will quickly figure out that the LLMs are basically rewriting their original research and extracting all monetary worth from it, and so stop publishing in any medium that the bots can harvest the information. So all new discoveries will get walled off from the GPTs and we will be stuck with constantly regurgitated old information unless you go looking in paid for publications.
  - cudgy 3y ago
    What other scenario is there without human contributors getting properly compensated for their time and effort?

>If they don't employ writers, then who is going to be writing the magazine? Well there is always chatGPT

elektrontamer 3y ago

That's what I really fear about LLMs, good content is going to get drowned out by endless bot drivel.

intothemild 3y ago
I think this wont be sustainable, like, how long til until people stop reading LLM generated content?
jvm___ 3y ago
I keep re-reading and referencing this article as it lays out how the human vs AI internet landscape is likely to shake out. https://maggieappleton.com/ai-dark-forest https://maggieappleton.com/ai-dark-forest
pmoriarty 3y ago
> That's what I really fear about LLMs, good content is going to get drowned out by endless bot drivel. I anticipate the opposite. Already AI content is better than crappy human writers. In the medium term AI content is going to be better than most human writers (it arguably already is in some limited cases). In the long term it may compete with the best human writers. Some humans are too full of themselves, thinking they're so exceptional, while computers are proving time and again that's not so. The evidence is starting us in the face.
- russian-troll 3y ago
  >In the long term it may compete with the best human writers. AIs lack connection with real world. This is important if we speak about NatGeo. >The evidence is starting us in the face. AIs generate average texts. It is admittedly cool. But I think it just shows how much human drivel is out there. Funny thing is that people optimized texts for search engines in attempts to hack ranking black boxes. Hence ML AI was the reason for bullshit for quite some time long before LLMs.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  AI content today is better than the worst human writers, but only because the worst human writers are so terrible. (Think of you trying to write an essay in a language that you’ve only studied for 3 months bad.) That doesn’t mean that LLMs are on a course to inevitably surpass the 90th percentile human writer (which is what most full-time writers presumably are). I may be a Luddite here, but I don’t expect that in my young kids’ lifetime.
  - Guthur 3y ago
    In my opinion LLM will never be able to replicate the human experience as it's solely based on language which in itself is only a poor facsimile of consciousness. If writing is our best attempt to share our personal psychic experience then all LLM can be is fragments of those experiences and can not in itself experience the presence of being that is human.
- versteegen 3y ago
  (I'll note you wrote "AI content" not "LLMs", before anyone gets the wrong idea.) > Some humans are too full of themselves, thinking they're so exceptional, while computers are proving time and again that's not so. The evidence is starting us in the face. Thanks for daring to state this unpopular opinion. I completely agree that humans have a very poor (and hence inflated) idea of what they are good at, because they have only had animals and (recently) machines to compare themselves to, plus these opinions formed long ago are a very firmly held cultural memory (e.g. literary and movie tropes, religion). Creativity being IMO one of the most badly misclaimed abilities.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  >The evidence is starting us in the face. It sure is!
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  8000 token essays are, but beyond that it can't keep coherence.
- taylodl 3y ago
  The AI produced content I've seen writes like a competent 5th grader. National Geographic wasn't being written by competent 5th graders. I do think people are going to get tired of AI-produced this and AI-produced that - they're going to crave content created by humans. At least for some things. There may be a place for AI-created content that we love. That is this whole thing might be a false dilemma, it's not AI or human created content, it's AI and human created content. We'll find out which is better at what.
  - thesnide 3y ago
    I imaging that in a not-so-distant future we'll have some "Genuine Human Generated Certification" It has happened the same way in every areas where you have rampant counterfeit or simply cheaper competition. As even if LLM can generate greate quality content, it will always be even cheaper to mass produce low quality. And once you cross the Rubicon of not being certified, it is just a matter of time that capitalism/greed will make it a race to the bottom.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    > The AI produced content I've seen writes like a competent 5th grader. National Geographic wasn't being written by competent 5th graders. Well, over half of Americans read below a 6th grade reading level[1], so it seems like AI content is satisfactory, given the median reading skills. 1: https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy
    - wasimanitoba 3y ago
      National Geographic's audience might not tend toward the lowest denominator. There's a good chance that people who read that magazine have a higher average reading level.
    - Incipient 3y ago
      That's not a positive point for llms. That's just a horrific indictment on how badly the US education has failed. Past tense. It has failed. It's not failing.
- grever 3y ago
  [dead]
- ForOldHack 3y ago
  You are using an AI to write this? Or do a vast majority of actual humans rely on crappy writing? You do make a good point. I'll shove my next few wikipedia edits down an AIs gullet... *This was written with an AI, and I told it to be spicy, salty and smarmy.
another2another 3y ago
The other possible scenario is that people who want to create new content will quickly figure out that the LLMs are basically rewriting their original research and extracting all monetary worth from it, and so stop publishing in any medium that the bots can harvest the information. So all new discoveries will get walled off from the GPTs and we will be stuck with constantly regurgitated old information unless you go looking in paid for publications.
- cudgy 3y ago
  What other scenario is there without human contributors getting properly compensated for their time and effort?