4 ms·
Oh the web was full of slop long before LLMs arrived. Nothing new. If anything, AI slop is higher quality than was SEO crap. And of course we can't uninvent AI
by visarga 1y ago
Oh the web was full of slop long before LLMs arrived. Nothing new. If anything, AI slop is higher quality than was SEO crap. And of course we can't uninvent AI just like we can't unborn a human.
- Sophira 1y agoIt depends on the metric you use. Yes, AI text could be considered higher quality than traditional SEO, but at the same time, it's also very much not, because it always sounds like it might be authoritative, but you could be reading something hallucinated. In the end, the text was still only ever made to get visitors to websites, not to provide accurate information.
- jsjohnst 1y ago> it's also very much not, because it always sounds like it might be authoritative, but you could be reading something hallucinated I keep hearing this repeated over and over as if it’s a unique problem for AI. This is DEFINITELY true of human generated content too.
- tpmoney 1y ago> it's also very much not, because it always sounds like it might be authoritative, but you could be reading something hallucinated. People telling lies on the internet is an old enough and well known enough issue that it’s appeared in children’s TV shows. One need only dive down the rabbit hole of 9/11 “truthers” to see how much completely made up bullshit is published online as absolute fact with authoritative certainty. AI is the hot new thing and gets all the headlines, but Scottish Wikipedia was a problem long before AI and long after society largely settled its mind about how reliable Wikipedia is.