4 ms·

Because you are I will not be able to tell whether something is machine- or human-generated, and the machine generated stuff will get more clicks than the human

Because you are I will not be able to tell whether something is machine- or human-generated, and the machine generated stuff will get more clicks than the human generated stuff, it’s likely that the majority of popular online content (and even printed content post-2023) will have been created by AI (and perhaps solely by AI). Sorry, but when you make claims like this, it just tells me that you are not very familiar with popular culture. Most people hate AI content and at best find it a meme-esque joke. And young people increasingly get their news from individuals on TikTok/YouTube/etc. - who are directly incentivized to be as idiosyncratic and unique (read: not like AI) as possible in order to get followers. Platforms like YouTube do not benefit from their library being entirely composed of AI slop, and so will be implementing ways to filter AI content from "real people" content. Ultimately AI tools are mostly going to be useful in situations where the author doesn't matter: sports scores, stock headlines, etc. Everything else will likely be out-competed by actual humans being human.

viraptor 1y ago
> Most people hate AI content I think you're overgeneralising here. People don't hate AI content. Just content so low quality that they recognise it as AI. This is not universal and the recognition will drop further: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976231207095 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976231207095 > from individuals on TikTok/YouTube/etc. - who are directly incentivized to be as idiosyncratic and unique (read: not like AI AI content can be just as unique. It's not all-or-nothing. People can inject a specific style and direction in an otherwise generated content to keep it on brand.
- keiferski 1y ago
  Any attempt to create an AI “influencer” has been met with massive backlash. At best you’re going to get some generically anonymous bot pretending to be human, that has limited reach because they don’t actually exist in the real world. Much of the media influence game involves podcasts, events, interviews, and a host of other things that can’t be faked. I just don’t really see what scenario the doomsayers are imagining here. An entire media sphere of AIs that somehow shift public opinion without existing or interacting with the real media world? The practicalities don’t make sense.
  - AstroBen 1y ago
    > Much of the media influence game involves podcasts, events, interviews, and a host of other things that can’t be faked. Have you not been following how fast video gen is improving? We're not far off convincing fake video interviews The backlash only happens when people can tell it's AI
    - keiferski 1y ago
      Again, I don’t really see what scenario here is actually some kind of doomsday. So someone makes a fake video of X famous person saying an absurd thing on Joe Rogan’s podcast. It’s not on the official Rogan account, but just on some low quality AI slop channel. Maybe it fools a handful of people…but who cares? People are already pretty trained to be skeptical of video. I think we’ll mostly just see a focus on identity verification. If the content isn’t verified as being by the real person, it’ll just be treated as mindless entertainment.

viraptor 1y ago

> Most people hate AI content I think you're overgeneralising here. People don't hate AI content. Just content so low quality that they recognise it as AI. This is not universal and the recognition will drop further: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976231207095 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976231207095 > from individuals on TikTok/YouTube/etc. - who are directly incentivized to be as idiosyncratic and unique (read: not like AI AI content can be just as unique. It's not all-or-nothing. People can inject a specific style and direction in an otherwise generated content to keep it on brand.

keiferski 1y ago
Any attempt to create an AI “influencer” has been met with massive backlash. At best you’re going to get some generically anonymous bot pretending to be human, that has limited reach because they don’t actually exist in the real world. Much of the media influence game involves podcasts, events, interviews, and a host of other things that can’t be faked. I just don’t really see what scenario the doomsayers are imagining here. An entire media sphere of AIs that somehow shift public opinion without existing or interacting with the real media world? The practicalities don’t make sense.
- AstroBen 1y ago
  > Much of the media influence game involves podcasts, events, interviews, and a host of other things that can’t be faked. Have you not been following how fast video gen is improving? We're not far off convincing fake video interviews The backlash only happens when people can tell it's AI
  - keiferski 1y ago
    Again, I don’t really see what scenario here is actually some kind of doomsday. So someone makes a fake video of X famous person saying an absurd thing on Joe Rogan’s podcast. It’s not on the official Rogan account, but just on some low quality AI slop channel. Maybe it fools a handful of people…but who cares? People are already pretty trained to be skeptical of video. I think we’ll mostly just see a focus on identity verification. If the content isn’t verified as being by the real person, it’ll just be treated as mindless entertainment.