5 ms·
I believe this to be the correct take away. They don't actually want to ban AI content. They want to ban garbage content. If they claim that something is AI
by Verdex 2y ago
I believe this to be the correct take away.
They don't actually want to ban AI content. They want to ban garbage content. If they claim that something is AI content, then it's not like there's a good defense a writer can offer. Short of meticulously recording themselves typing the article up on a typewriter in real life ahead of time. In real time so everyone can see them going through revisions.
This is AI and we're banning you, is simply a sufficiently socially acceptable reason to get rid of content that they otherwise don't want clogging up their site.
- red_admiral 2y agoIndeed. xkcd 810 comes to mind.
- monkpit 2y agohttps://xkcd.com/810/ https://xkcd.com/810/
- sebastiennight 2y agoWell someone could easily whip up a prompt-to-video which, given a prompt, outputs an entire article AND a screenrecording of laboriously typing-and-revising from a draft to the final output. It would probably take a weekend.
- Verdex 2y agoI would love to see something like that. I think it would be really neat. (Any takers? I hear it probably won't even take that long.) [Of course if you were creating and uploading these videos as you create your content over time. And the upload site was either relatively well known or sufficiently third party that you can trust the timestamps, then I think it wouldn't matter if it was AI or not. "Hey, this person isn't using AI, they've been uploading videos of their process for years. Who in the world would do that just so they can get away with using AI five years later?" It's not really a proof so much as it is a social proof. The person under fire needs a socially acceptable way to fight back against a socially acceptable ban-able offense. At least in my experience, lots of paper work normally does the trick.]