3 ms·

LLMs do not simply use the commons, they are a vehicle for polluting the commons on an industrial scale. If, hypothetically, the ethical problems with plagiariz

LLMs do not simply use the commons, they are a vehicle for polluting the commons on an industrial scale. If, hypothetically, the ethical problems with plagiarizing creative work to create these models were a non-issue, there would still be massive ethical problems with allowing their outputs to be re-incorporated into the web, drowning useful information in a haze of superficially plausible misinformation.

visarga 2y ago
I don't think you are right. If you test LLM text and random internet text for inaccuracies and utility, you'd probably find more luck with LLM text. For example, if you use a LLM to summarize this whole debate, you would get a decent balanced report, incorporating many points of view. Many times the article generated from the chat thread is better than the original one. Certainly better grounded in the community of readers, debunks claims, represents many perspectives. (https://pastebin.com/raw/karBY0zD https://pastebin.com/raw/karBY0zD)
- RodgerTheGreat 2y ago
  I am not going to fact-check your sludge for you.
  - visarga 2y ago
    > fact check That's funny, because I was using forum debates as LLM reference precisely in order to reduce errors. People usually debunk stupid articles, the discussion is often centered on fact checking. A LLM referencing a HN/reddit thread is more informed than one reading the source material. There is a fundamental conflict of interest in press. It costs money to run a newspaper, and then you just give it away for free? No, you use it to push propaganda and generally to manipulate. Forums have become the last defense for actual readers. We trust other people will be more aligned with our interests than who wrote the article. I trust my forum mates more than press, and LLM gives a nice veneer to the text. No wonder people attach "reddit" to searches, they want the same thing. The actual press is feeding us the real slop. LLMs are doing a service to turn threads into a nice reading format. Might become the only "press" we trust in the future.

visarga 2y ago

I don't think you are right. If you test LLM text and random internet text for inaccuracies and utility, you'd probably find more luck with LLM text. For example, if you use a LLM to summarize this whole debate, you would get a decent balanced report, incorporating many points of view. Many times the article generated from the chat thread is better than the original one. Certainly better grounded in the community of readers, debunks claims, represents many perspectives. (https://pastebin.com/raw/karBY0zD https://pastebin.com/raw/karBY0zD)

RodgerTheGreat 2y ago
I am not going to fact-check your sludge for you.
- visarga 2y ago
  > fact check That's funny, because I was using forum debates as LLM reference precisely in order to reduce errors. People usually debunk stupid articles, the discussion is often centered on fact checking. A LLM referencing a HN/reddit thread is more informed than one reading the source material. There is a fundamental conflict of interest in press. It costs money to run a newspaper, and then you just give it away for free? No, you use it to push propaganda and generally to manipulate. Forums have become the last defense for actual readers. We trust other people will be more aligned with our interests than who wrote the article. I trust my forum mates more than press, and LLM gives a nice veneer to the text. No wonder people attach "reddit" to searches, they want the same thing. The actual press is feeding us the real slop. LLMs are doing a service to turn threads into a nice reading format. Might become the only "press" we trust in the future.