4 ms·
You can prompt/train the AI to add a couple of random minor errors. They're trained from human text after all, they can pretend to be as human as you like.
by ipaio 2y ago
You can prompt/train the AI to add a couple of random minor errors. They're trained from human text after all, they can pretend to be as human as you like.
- eleveriven 2y agoMaking it feel like there's no reliable way to discern what's truly human
- vouaobrasil 2y agoThere is. Be vehemently against AI, put 100% AI free in your work. The more consistent you are against AI, the more likely people will believe you. Write articles slamming AI. Personally, I am 100% against AI and I state that loud and clear on my blogs and YouTube channel. I HATE AI.
- jaredsohn 2y agoHate to tell you but there is nothing stopping people using AI from doing the same thing.
- vouaobrasil 2y agoAI cannot build up a sufficient level of trust, especially if you are known in person by others who will vouch for you. That web of trust is hard to break with AI. And I am one of those.
- danielbln 2y agoAre you including transformer based translation models like Google Translate or Deepl in your categorical AI rejectio?
- vouaobrasil 2y agoYeah.
- vasco 2y agoThe funny thing is that the things it refuses to say are "wrong-speech" type stuff, so the only things you can be more sure of nowadays are conspiracy theories and other nasty stuff. The nastier the more likely it's human written, which is a bit ironic.
- Jensson 2y ago> The nastier the more likely it's human written, which is a bit ironic. This is as everything else, machine produced has a flawlessness along some dimension that humans tend to lack.
- matteoraso 2y agoNo, you can finetune locally hosted LLMs to be nasty.
- slashdave 2y agoMaybe the future of creative writing is fine tuning your own unique form of nastiness
- Applejinx 2y agoBarring simple typos, human mistakes are erroneous intention from a single source. You can't simply write human vagaries off as 'error' because they're glimpses into a picture of intention that is perhaps misguided. I'm listening to a slightly wonky early James Brown instrumental right now, and there's certainly a lot more error than you'd get in sequenced computer music (or indeed generated music) but the force with which humans wrest the wonkiness toward an idea of groove is palpable. Same with Zeppelin's 'Communication Breakdown' (I'm doing a groove analysis project, ok?). I can't program the AI to have intention, nor can you. If you do, hello Skynet, and it's time you started thinking about how to be nice to it, or else :)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]