3 ms·
> AI articles will probably be less bullshit than the current site. I'm not so optimistic. Its all in the training. I'm expecting BSGpt that will be trained to
by noisy_boy 3y ago
> AI articles will probably be less bullshit than the current site.
I'm not so optimistic. Its all in the training. I'm expecting BSGpt that will be trained to produce exactly the kind of nonsense these sites produce and their consumers like.
- prepend 3y agoI think AI content is terrible. But I think Gizmodo is worse. They’ve basically been doing manual AI content for years. A mix of blargh-speak, advertiser commissioned content, and just really bad and lazy authors who don’t have creative freedom to write. I also don’t think consumers like the current content, but just end up there due to dark patterns and circular advertising. So the content doesn’t matter as all they do is trick people into “reading” enough to watch a pre roll or click a link or whatever they are monetizing.
- noisy_boy 3y agoAgreed with everything you said. But with AI, they will be able to remove the scaling problem - instead of 50 people writing 100 bs articles, there will be an LLM generating 1000 bs articles and the degrees of required bs + dark patterns + commissioned content injection etc can done at a much larger scale. Their core model is bs; they can't/won't change that - they will now just be able to do that at scale.
- prepend 3y agoGood point, so it will be more profitable for Gizmodo as they’ll have much higher content levels. But for me I can ignore a billion crap results the same as a thousand. I’m expecting there will be some version of an “AI Long Tail” article soon that explains how the tail will get really long now. Although it would be bad if AI causes a fat tail where everything is the same and there’s no more long tail.
- bookofjoe 3y agoIf — as Nick Bostrom and Elon Musk contend — we are more likely than not living in a simulation then ALL content is AI.