4 ms·
The current thinking is that it becomes a negative feedback loop, a kind of lossy "compression" of our cultural output. Combined with normal bitrot we'll eventu
by bane 3y ago
The current thinking is that it becomes a negative feedback loop, a kind of lossy "compression" of our cultural output. Combined with normal bitrot we'll eventually start losing components of our shared culture until civilization ends.
- shermantanktop 3y agoWell, hopefully we’ll still have toast and jam, so there’s that. This suggests a sort of cultural event horizon beyond which AI cannot see. Five years from now, the way actual people talk and think about a new topic will be drowned in AI content, creating a gulf between reality as people actually see it and the AI universe. Unfortunately for many people their reality is already slated to become AI-mediated.
- astrange 3y agoIt doesn't really seem to be much of a problem. Data quality is important, but there is plenty of incorrect information in the training data whether or not it's AI generated. And training on synthetic data works fine. I see a lot of uninformed people claiming this is going to doom AI though.
- shermantanktop 3y agoI'm no AI expert, but I'm not uninformed. Can you explain what "informed" means in this context? I'm aware of the use of synthetic data for training in the context of a curated training effort, with HITL checking and other controls. What we're talking about here is a world where 1) the corpus is polluted with an unknown quantity of unlabeled AI-generated content, and 2) reputational indicators (link counts, social media sharing/likes) may amplify AI-generated content, and lead to similar content being intentionally AI-generated. At that point, can the incorrect info in the training set really be controlled for using noise reduction or other controls?