5 ms·

I think they are right unintentionally. The growing amount of low-quality content everywhere could become a real problem.

ajsnigrutin 6mo ago
Now imagine all that low quality AI slop is being posted online and a new generation of AI will "learn" from it, output it's own version of AI slop, that will eventually end up online again for a new generation of AI to "learn" from. Something, something, idiocracy comes to mind.
- Nevermark 6mo ago
  > Something, something, idiocracy comes to mind. So, confirmation? They are catching up quickly! The actuality is, anyone with pre-slop data still has their pre-slop data. And there are endless ways to get more value out of good data. Bootstrapping better performance by using existing models to down select data for higher density/median quality, or leverage recognizable lower quality data to reinforce doing better. Models critiquing each other, so the baseline AI behavior increases, and in the process, they also create better training data. And a thousand more ways. Managed intelligently, intelligence wants to compound. The difference between human and AI idiocracy, is we don't delete our idiots. I am not suggesting we do that. But maybe we shouldn't elect them. Either way, that is one more very steep disadvantage for us.
- livinglist 6mo ago
  The AI centipede
- bitwize 6mo ago
  This leads to a well-documented phenomenon known as model collapse. You know how if you blur and sharpen an image repeatedly you eventually end up with just a rectangle of creepy, wormy spaghetti lines? You lose information on each blur, and then ask it to reconstitute the image with less information on each sharpen, until there's nothing recognizable left. Training a model is like the blur and generating from that model is like the sharpen. Repeat enough times and enough information is lost that you're just left with "wormy spaghetti lines"—in an LLM's case, meaningless gibberish that actually pretty closely resembles the glitchy stuff said by the cores that fall off GLaDOS in Portal. I dunno, you read the paper and be the judge: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07566-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07566-y To jump to the last output sample, C-f Gen 9 Of course you may be talking about the human aspect of this. Gods willing, we'll realize that our LLMs are spewing gibberish and think twice about putting them in all the things, all the time. But the scenario I fear isn't Idiocracy—it's worse: a community of humans who treat the gibberish as sacred writ, Zardoz style.
raincole 6mo ago
They were more than right. They were correct in an intentional, precise manner. This is what OpenAI actually stated[0]: > Synthetic imagery, audio, and video, imply that technologies are reducing the cost of generating fake content and waging disinformation campaigns. > ‘The public at large will need to become more sceptical of text they find online, just as the ”deep fakes” phenomenon calls for more scepticism about images. It ended up just like that. [0]: https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/15/elon-musks-openai-builds-artificial-intelligence-powerful-must-kept-locked-good-humanity-8634379/ https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/15/elon-musks-openai-builds-arti...
- johnfn 6mo ago
  Yeah, I find it a bit odd how at the time everyone was pointing and laughing at OpenAI for being obviously wrong about this. Now in 2026, AI slop is very obviously a serious problem - it inundates all platforms and obscures the truth. And people are still saying OpenAI in 2019 were wrong?
  - mrcwinn 6mo ago
    It's this crowd having it both ways. The default desire is to dunk on AI, however inconsistent the arguments.
  - chris_va 6mo ago
    I think people today are more focused on how OpenAI released a model "too dangerous to release", not that they were right or wrong, as part of the general trend of criticizing OpenAI for not following any of its stated principles.
    - JeremyNT 6mo ago
      Exactly. The (real) issues were ultimately disregarded even if they were correctly identified. My assumption is that it was too expensive to actually release at the time. It wasn't good enough for anybody to pay to use it yet, and it surely was very expensive to run, especially for a (fake, granted) non profit.
  - 6mo ago
bigfishrunning 6mo ago
It already is a real problem. Large portions of the internet are completely untrustworthy because of the sheer slop volume.
nradov 6mo ago
Lol. The vast majority of content has always been low-quality. Those who believe that things were better before LLMs have selective memory.
- Groxx 6mo ago
  Those who can't see a significant change in quantity also have selective memory
- TehCorwiz 6mo ago
  The quality hasn't changed. The volume has. It used to take real human time to create garbage. There was value in that. Someone though "Hmm, what worthless thing can I do? I know! I'll make people online mad." And then they spent the time getting someone else's goat. It was great. A good balance, spreading lies took some minimum effort. Now we have automated garbage. And the flavor of the garbage is: gaslighting people with an illusion of community. We've empowered the trolls with an infinite meme-o-rater while ignoring the real human time spent unwillingly sifting through the ever increasing pile of worthlessness. The world does not have to get worse. We're letting it though.
  - monkpit 6mo ago
    > We're letting it though. It would be nice if “we” had anything to do with it. Just think about the next campaign trail for any superpower, it’s going to be a disaster of fake news and slop coming from all over the globe.
- albedoa 6mo ago
  The comment that you are replying to does not mention a ratio.
- cinkhangin 6mo ago
  Maybe that's true, But I think before LLMs became common, people had more distinct ways of expressing themselves, low-quality for not. Now, a lot of online writing feels uniform and I think that is worse.

ajsnigrutin 6mo ago

Now imagine all that low quality AI slop is being posted online and a new generation of AI will "learn" from it, output it's own version of AI slop, that will eventually end up online again for a new generation of AI to "learn" from. Something, something, idiocracy comes to mind.

Nevermark 6mo ago
> Something, something, idiocracy comes to mind. So, confirmation? They are catching up quickly! The actuality is, anyone with pre-slop data still has their pre-slop data. And there are endless ways to get more value out of good data. Bootstrapping better performance by using existing models to down select data for higher density/median quality, or leverage recognizable lower quality data to reinforce doing better. Models critiquing each other, so the baseline AI behavior increases, and in the process, they also create better training data. And a thousand more ways. Managed intelligently, intelligence wants to compound. The difference between human and AI idiocracy, is we don't delete our idiots. I am not suggesting we do that. But maybe we shouldn't elect them. Either way, that is one more very steep disadvantage for us.
livinglist 6mo ago
The AI centipede
bitwize 6mo ago
This leads to a well-documented phenomenon known as model collapse. You know how if you blur and sharpen an image repeatedly you eventually end up with just a rectangle of creepy, wormy spaghetti lines? You lose information on each blur, and then ask it to reconstitute the image with less information on each sharpen, until there's nothing recognizable left. Training a model is like the blur and generating from that model is like the sharpen. Repeat enough times and enough information is lost that you're just left with "wormy spaghetti lines"—in an LLM's case, meaningless gibberish that actually pretty closely resembles the glitchy stuff said by the cores that fall off GLaDOS in Portal. I dunno, you read the paper and be the judge: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07566-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07566-y To jump to the last output sample, C-f Gen 9 Of course you may be talking about the human aspect of this. Gods willing, we'll realize that our LLMs are spewing gibberish and think twice about putting them in all the things, all the time. But the scenario I fear isn't Idiocracy—it's worse: a community of humans who treat the gibberish as sacred writ, Zardoz style.

raincole 6mo ago

They were more than right. They were correct in an intentional, precise manner. This is what OpenAI actually stated[0]: > Synthetic imagery, audio, and video, imply that technologies are reducing the cost of generating fake content and waging disinformation campaigns. > ‘The public at large will need to become more sceptical of text they find online, just as the ”deep fakes” phenomenon calls for more scepticism about images. It ended up just like that. [0]: https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/15/elon-musks-openai-builds-artificial-intelligence-powerful-must-kept-locked-good-humanity-8634379/ https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/15/elon-musks-openai-builds-arti...

johnfn 6mo ago
Yeah, I find it a bit odd how at the time everyone was pointing and laughing at OpenAI for being obviously wrong about this. Now in 2026, AI slop is very obviously a serious problem - it inundates all platforms and obscures the truth. And people are still saying OpenAI in 2019 were wrong?
- mrcwinn 6mo ago
  It's this crowd having it both ways. The default desire is to dunk on AI, however inconsistent the arguments.
- chris_va 6mo ago
  I think people today are more focused on how OpenAI released a model "too dangerous to release", not that they were right or wrong, as part of the general trend of criticizing OpenAI for not following any of its stated principles.
  - JeremyNT 6mo ago
    Exactly. The (real) issues were ultimately disregarded even if they were correctly identified. My assumption is that it was too expensive to actually release at the time. It wasn't good enough for anybody to pay to use it yet, and it surely was very expensive to run, especially for a (fake, granted) non profit.
- 6mo ago

bigfishrunning 6mo ago

It already is a real problem. Large portions of the internet are completely untrustworthy because of the sheer slop volume.

nradov 6mo ago

Lol. The vast majority of content has always been low-quality. Those who believe that things were better before LLMs have selective memory.

Groxx 6mo ago
Those who can't see a significant change in quantity also have selective memory
TehCorwiz 6mo ago
The quality hasn't changed. The volume has. It used to take real human time to create garbage. There was value in that. Someone though "Hmm, what worthless thing can I do? I know! I'll make people online mad." And then they spent the time getting someone else's goat. It was great. A good balance, spreading lies took some minimum effort. Now we have automated garbage. And the flavor of the garbage is: gaslighting people with an illusion of community. We've empowered the trolls with an infinite meme-o-rater while ignoring the real human time spent unwillingly sifting through the ever increasing pile of worthlessness. The world does not have to get worse. We're letting it though.
- monkpit 6mo ago
  > We're letting it though. It would be nice if “we” had anything to do with it. Just think about the next campaign trail for any superpower, it’s going to be a disaster of fake news and slop coming from all over the globe.
albedoa 6mo ago
The comment that you are replying to does not mention a ratio.
cinkhangin 6mo ago
Maybe that's true, But I think before LLMs became common, people had more distinct ways of expressing themselves, low-quality for not. Now, a lot of online writing feels uniform and I think that is worse.