3 ms·

There are two reasons to be disappointed, both because the articles were AI generated almost certainly (or lazy intern generated?) and because they were really

by rnk 3y ago

There are two reasons to be disappointed, both because the articles were AI generated almost certainly (or lazy intern generated?) and because they were really paid advertisements and not identified as such. It's great that you gave those details, I just wanted to emphasize.

15457345234 3y ago
The main reason to be disappointed is the fluency with which people have taken to just outright lying. The article, to me, proves pretty conclusively that the articles were AI generated and that most (or at least some) of the authors aren't real people but the spokesman is just... lying. > A Gannett spokesperson took issue with the Guild claim that the writers weren’t real people, pointing to the LinkedIn page of one AdVon Commerce writer whose name appeared on a Reviewed article. At the top of his account, that writer touted his experience in “polishing AI generative text.” Like... This is like pointing to a robot and saying it isn't a robot. Nobody is fooled. But... why even do it? Isn't it... idk, embarrassing? To just talk complete nonsense?
- jstarfish 3y ago
  > The main reason to be disappointed is the fluency with which people have taken to just outright lying. The article, to me, proves pretty conclusively that the articles were AI generated and that most (or at least some) of the authors aren't real people but the spokesman is just... lying. Agreed. Maybe there's a proper term for it but I call it the "hitman fallacy," where people reason that they can't be accused of murder because they aren't the party that pulled the trigger. In a way, I can see their [tortured] logic-- they did in fact pay real money to a real person to write that article. It should follow that a real person did in fact write it, otherwise it's fraud. Gannett shies away from calling it that because it's not fraud when the other party delivers what you asked for.
K0balt 3y ago
At my last company we had a dual use for the term AI. When we anticipated that a function would eventually be automated by artificial intelligence, we would designate as a task force AI. Meanwhile, the AI would start out as “actually, interns” until we built up enough operational data to create a training suite. So in our case, AI often meant “Actually Interns”. Sometimes we contracted a firm in India for mechanical Turk type tasks as well, so it also worked for that.
- rnk 3y ago
  When you thought something could be automated by ai, were you thinking soon? Like say adjusting memory and gc settings for java in a running app? I just don't see ai solving problems that I run into like that in the next few years. I do see ai helping people write much more code maybe, work in domains that they don't understand well (I want to add new php functions to do blah to extend my company's website, but i don't know anything about php). So write me prototype code to do something that I can describe in brief, but skeptical of doing things that are futzing with per-application use case cloud settings. I don't want to have to learn how you adjust foo or bar or baz on google cloud and aws and azure and ... - automating that is useful. I'd like to automate say java memory changes, but making the gc system do it without me needing to change flags is even better.
  - K0balt 3y ago
    Usually it was tasks involving “human” judgement that did not lend themselves to conventional multivariate mappings or algorithms. When we transitioned our “proof of personhood” task to AI based on collected and curated training data, we achieved less false negatives and positives as well as a marked improvement in user satisfaction with the process. Most users thought we gave up on AI and went to real people when we transitioned from humans to AI lol.

by rnk 3y ago

15457345234 3y ago

The main reason to be disappointed is the fluency with which people have taken to just outright lying. The article, to me, proves pretty conclusively that the articles were AI generated and that most (or at least some) of the authors aren't real people but the spokesman is just... lying. > A Gannett spokesperson took issue with the Guild claim that the writers weren’t real people, pointing to the LinkedIn page of one AdVon Commerce writer whose name appeared on a Reviewed article. At the top of his account, that writer touted his experience in “polishing AI generative text.” Like... This is like pointing to a robot and saying it isn't a robot. Nobody is fooled. But... why even do it? Isn't it... idk, embarrassing? To just talk complete nonsense?

jstarfish 3y ago
> The main reason to be disappointed is the fluency with which people have taken to just outright lying. The article, to me, proves pretty conclusively that the articles were AI generated and that most (or at least some) of the authors aren't real people but the spokesman is just... lying. Agreed. Maybe there's a proper term for it but I call it the "hitman fallacy," where people reason that they can't be accused of murder because they aren't the party that pulled the trigger. In a way, I can see their [tortured] logic-- they did in fact pay real money to a real person to write that article. It should follow that a real person did in fact write it, otherwise it's fraud. Gannett shies away from calling it that because it's not fraud when the other party delivers what you asked for.

K0balt 3y ago

At my last company we had a dual use for the term AI. When we anticipated that a function would eventually be automated by artificial intelligence, we would designate as a task force AI. Meanwhile, the AI would start out as “actually, interns” until we built up enough operational data to create a training suite. So in our case, AI often meant “Actually Interns”. Sometimes we contracted a firm in India for mechanical Turk type tasks as well, so it also worked for that.

rnk 3y ago
When you thought something could be automated by ai, were you thinking soon? Like say adjusting memory and gc settings for java in a running app? I just don't see ai solving problems that I run into like that in the next few years. I do see ai helping people write much more code maybe, work in domains that they don't understand well (I want to add new php functions to do blah to extend my company's website, but i don't know anything about php). So write me prototype code to do something that I can describe in brief, but skeptical of doing things that are futzing with per-application use case cloud settings. I don't want to have to learn how you adjust foo or bar or baz on google cloud and aws and azure and ... - automating that is useful. I'd like to automate say java memory changes, but making the gc system do it without me needing to change flags is even better.
- K0balt 3y ago
  Usually it was tasks involving “human” judgement that did not lend themselves to conventional multivariate mappings or algorithms. When we transitioned our “proof of personhood” task to AI based on collected and curated training data, we achieved less false negatives and positives as well as a marked improvement in user satisfaction with the process. Most users thought we gave up on AI and went to real people when we transitioned from humans to AI lol.