5 ms·

Regardless of the AI detection score I wouldn't trust a random book on Amazon where safety was involved. Even before LLM spam there was low quality self publish

Regardless of the AI detection score I wouldn't trust a random book on Amazon where safety was involved. Even before LLM spam there was low quality self published garbage, algorithmic or otherwise.

vkou 3y ago
> low quality self published garbage, algorithmic or otherwise. To elaborate on this - a common scam that people used to run was to pay a ghostwriter ~$750 to 'write' a 'book' that had ~50-80 pages of bullshit word salad. They'd then try to stick a real author's name on it, and try to sell it. (Amazon has started putting in a little bit of effort at detecting this scam, so now the scammers have pivoted[1] to selling suckers a training course on how to do this.) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw
Turing_Machine 3y ago
Also low-quality traditionally published garbage.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  This is the equivalent of chiming in “75% of users eh? So that’s what… 3 out of every 4?” Yeah, we all know that the problems that AI is likely to amplify are already problems. The question is whether or not those problems will get worse. No matter how imperfect the current world is, one which is worse is 1) always possible and 2) worth preventing.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    I was reacting to the implication that "traditionally published" is some sort of badge of quality. Remember "Snooki"? Traditionally-published. I could name dozens, nay, hundreds of others. In fact, "traditionally published" simply means that a big conglomerate thought it would make a buck. Quality doesn't enter into the equation. At all.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      A big conglomerate [with access to market data on the demand side and tons of book optionality on the supply side] thinking it would make a buck absolutely is an additional filter for quality that doesn’t exist for AI-written self-published books. Real businesses and real authors also tend to be concerned about getting sued for things like libel or defamation, or just generally having their brand reputations dragged through the mud after releasing mislabeled and subpar products. It’s definitely an imperfect filter, sure, but then just see my original comment.
    - snypher 3y ago
      We could have a discussion about which celebrities you don't like but the issue here is material which is factually wrong and hence dangerous.
      - Turing_Machine 3y ago
        Like, say, astrology? Should that be banned? No one put you, or anyone, in charge of deciding which information is "dangerous".
        thefurdrake 3y ago
        [flagged]
        ethanbond 3y ago
        It’s the contrarianism fetish run amok
        thefurdrake 3y ago
        Yeah, I'm not sure what's up with these weirdos. It's like they expect to be taken seriously when their worldview is apparently based on absurdist philosophy.
        3y ago

Regardless of the AI detection score I wouldn't trust a random book on Amazon where safety was involved. Even before LLM spam there was low quality self published garbage, algorithmic or otherwise.

vkou 3y ago

> low quality self published garbage, algorithmic or otherwise. To elaborate on this - a common scam that people used to run was to pay a ghostwriter ~$750 to 'write' a 'book' that had ~50-80 pages of bullshit word salad. They'd then try to stick a real author's name on it, and try to sell it. (Amazon has started putting in a little bit of effort at detecting this scam, so now the scammers have pivoted[1] to selling suckers a training course on how to do this.) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biYciU1uiUw

Turing_Machine 3y ago

Also low-quality traditionally published garbage.

ethanbond 3y ago
This is the equivalent of chiming in “75% of users eh? So that’s what… 3 out of every 4?” Yeah, we all know that the problems that AI is likely to amplify are already problems. The question is whether or not those problems will get worse. No matter how imperfect the current world is, one which is worse is 1) always possible and 2) worth preventing.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  I was reacting to the implication that "traditionally published" is some sort of badge of quality. Remember "Snooki"? Traditionally-published. I could name dozens, nay, hundreds of others. In fact, "traditionally published" simply means that a big conglomerate thought it would make a buck. Quality doesn't enter into the equation. At all.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    A big conglomerate [with access to market data on the demand side and tons of book optionality on the supply side] thinking it would make a buck absolutely is an additional filter for quality that doesn’t exist for AI-written self-published books. Real businesses and real authors also tend to be concerned about getting sued for things like libel or defamation, or just generally having their brand reputations dragged through the mud after releasing mislabeled and subpar products. It’s definitely an imperfect filter, sure, but then just see my original comment.
  - snypher 3y ago
    We could have a discussion about which celebrities you don't like but the issue here is material which is factually wrong and hence dangerous.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      Like, say, astrology? Should that be banned? No one put you, or anyone, in charge of deciding which information is "dangerous".
      - thefurdrake 3y ago
        [flagged]
        ethanbond 3y ago
        It’s the contrarianism fetish run amok
        thefurdrake 3y ago
        Yeah, I'm not sure what's up with these weirdos. It's like they expect to be taken seriously when their worldview is apparently based on absurdist philosophy.
        3y ago