zlacker

If it’s a good comment, does it really matter if a human or an AI wrote it?

>>nickpp+(OP)
Yes.

>>makewo+83
Please expand on that.

>>nickpp+d4
This is the most cogent argument against AI I've seen so far.

https://youtu.be/iGJcF4bLKd4?si=Q_JGEZnV-tpFa1Tb

>>iamfli+08
I am sorry, I greatly respect and admire Nick Cave, but that letter sounded to me like the lament of a scribe decrying the invention of the printing press.

He's not wrong, something is lost and it has to do with what we call our "humanity", but the benefits greatly outweigh that loss.

>>nickpp+d4
I think this summarizes it pretty well. Even if you don't mind the garbage, the future AI will feed on this garbage, creating AI and human brain gray goo.

https://ploum.net/2022-12-05-drowning-in-ai-generated-garbag...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo

>>Mistle+1D
Is this a real problem model trainers actually face or is it an imagined one? The Internet is already full of garbage - 90% of the unpleasantness of browsing these days is filtering through mounts and mounds of crap. Some is generated, some is written, but still crap full of wrong and lies.

I would've imagined training sets were heavily curated and annotated. We already know how to solve this problem for training humans (or our kids would never learn anything useful) so I imagine we could solve it similarly for AIs.

In the end, if it's quality content, learning it is beneficial - no matter who produced it. Garbage needs to be eliminated and the distinction is made either by human trainers or already trained AIs. I have no idea how to train the latter but I am no expert in this field - just like (I suspect) the author of that blog.

>>nickpp+d4
The value of a creation cannot be solely judged by its output. It's hard to explain, it's better to intuit it.

>>nickpp+Tz
If you think humanity being lost is acceptable, then it's hard to discuss anything else on this topic.

>>makewo+nS3
> you think humanity being lost is acceptable

I never said that.