this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
444 points (94.2% liked)
Technology
59709 readers
5673 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Kind of like how true thoughts and opinions on complex topics are boiled down to digestible concepts for others to understand who then perpetuate those concepts without understanding them and the meaning degrades and we dont think anymore, just repeat stuff in social media comments.
Side note... this article sucks and seems like it was ai generated. Repetitive and no author credit? Just says it was originally posted elsewhere.
Generative AI isnt in danger of being killed as this clickbait titled suggests... just hindered.
Theres a link to the other article, in this article. Says Kristin Houser wrote it...although you may have a point about the rest.
ty
I doubt that.
By chance, is that based on other peoples succinct social media comments on ai?
No. I simply don't see a plausible scenario for that. The social media comments are quite deplorable. You really have to look for bubbles with educated people. I don't know why this gets so much traction. Maybe it's because the copyright industry likes it, or maybe it feeds some psychological need like Intelligent Design.
Cant blame me for asking :)
Seems like tools to recognize ai content to prevent synthetic input avoids model degredation.
If those tools are up to the task then i would agree it probably doesnt hinder model training. Not sure what the reality is, or if the need for those tools creates a barrier to entry for a significant portion of those trying to create models with internet-crawled data.
There is no problem with ingesting synthetic data. Well, at least none coming from the fact that it is synthetic. If there was a fundamental difference between the 1s and 0s encoding synthetic data and the 1s and 0s encoding any other data, then you could easily filter it. But there isn't. The ideas that this community has are magical thinking.
I want to be constructive so:
Please consider the unintentional disinformation people create when they try to sound like they know what they are talking about. Contributing to discussion is difficult on complex topics.
Its perfectly natural to want to continue a conversation to the point where you might fill in some details instead of researching a topic or not responding. But this is seriously harmful in the age of disinformation. Theres plenty i dont know. But there are tools expressly created to identify ai content to avoid using it in model training. The consequence of using synthetic data is the only topic in the article you are commenting on. Either read the article or please dont feel like you need to come up with a response.
Yes, I shouldn't bother replying in these threads. In truth, I've already given up on this community but sometimes when I'm bored I can't help a little peek. Maybe in a few years, some of the smarter ones will wonder why nothing ever came of this. Anyway, be careful with those AI detectors. They don't work and sooner or later someone is going to get in trouble over that.