3 ms·

Honestly, I don't care. For all the talk about hallucinations, LLMs are still more reliable and accurate than a random person I talk to, or a random article wri

Honestly, I don't care. For all the talk about hallucinations, LLMs are still more reliable and accurate than a random person I talk to, or a random article written by a human. AI text, on its own, is not a net loss compared to human-generated content. So instead, I use the same heuristics I always did: looking for signals of reputability, whether it's an expert or amateur content, whether it's done pro bono or as a bait to get you to view ads, etc. It's still all about intent. Bad actors will use AI to create bad content just like they've been using humans to do so far. Good actors won't use AI as extensively, but even when they do, they'll make sure the output is good. Inability to distinguish between human and LLM writing changes nothing here.

skydhash 2y ago
Why would you talk to a random human or read some random article on a regular basis? The key is curation. You select things you will pay attention to. And for me, nothing AI is interesting (apart from translation and I’m wary of it), because I already have nice content to consume.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > Why would you talk to a random human or read some random article on a regular basis? That's literally 90%+ percent of content you consume. It includes newspaper articles whose authors you don't know, approximately every result you view from Google, and even most comments here, mine included. Same is the case for everyone. You're right, it's about curation, but what I'm saying is, AI authorship is a non-factor once you control for incentives and context. Right now, there are no independent AI agents on the Internet - so behind every piece of generated content, there is a human that decided the particular piece of content should be generated and then published. Put another way, how good or bad AI models are is irrelevant - any AI content you see has been deemed good enough by the humans publishing it. Identify those people and curate against them, like you always did.

skydhash 2y ago

Why would you talk to a random human or read some random article on a regular basis? The key is curation. You select things you will pay attention to. And for me, nothing AI is interesting (apart from translation and I’m wary of it), because I already have nice content to consume.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> Why would you talk to a random human or read some random article on a regular basis? That's literally 90%+ percent of content you consume. It includes newspaper articles whose authors you don't know, approximately every result you view from Google, and even most comments here, mine included. Same is the case for everyone. You're right, it's about curation, but what I'm saying is, AI authorship is a non-factor once you control for incentives and context. Right now, there are no independent AI agents on the Internet - so behind every piece of generated content, there is a human that decided the particular piece of content should be generated and then published. Put another way, how good or bad AI models are is irrelevant - any AI content you see has been deemed good enough by the humans publishing it. Identify those people and curate against them, like you always did.