4 ms·
It's an interesting and maybe useful idea definitely, but I agree I don't think it's passed yet.
by triyambakam 2y ago
It's an interesting and maybe useful idea definitely, but I agree I don't think it's passed yet.
- nonrandomstring 2y agoI think we already passed the point because it's experimentally undecidable now. "distinguishing between human and AI written text or generated images was no longer easy or even possible." I mean, how would you know? This seems to set up an falsifiable test. Unless you've strict experimental conditions in which all "AI" material is verified and labelled as such? The reality is that "AI" is a tool of deception. Writers who use it disguise their source and try to pass generative work off as their own. Publishers make money by pretending to have real writers. "AI" itself operates as "artifice", as "fake people". The conditions for discrimination aren't isolated enough, it's already deeply entwined with capitalist/political values. And further, there is an ideological bias overlaid on the problem. Some proponents or detractors simply won't accept known results even where there's a good proof or chain of evidence.