This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
This seems really short-sighted. Why would I go to How Stuff Works when I can just ask the LLM myself?
Maybe there's just no possible business model for them anymore with the advent of LLMs, but at least if they focused on the "actually written by humans!" angle there'd be some hook to draw people in.
The thing is, the LLM doesn't actually know anything, and lies about it.
So you go to How Stuff Works now, and you get bullshit lies instead of real information, you'll also get nonsense that looks like language at first glance, but is gibberish pretending to be an article. Because sometimes the language model changes topics midway through and doesn't correct, because it can't correct. It doesn't actually know what it's saying.
See, these language models are pre-trained, that the P in chatGPT. They just regurgitate the training data, but put together in ways that sort of look like more of the same training data.
There are some hard coded filters and responses, but other than that, nope, just a spew of garbage out from the random garbage in.
And yet, all sorts of people think this shit is ready to take over writing duties for everyone, saving money and winning court cases.
Yeah, this is why I can't really take anyone seriously when they say it'll take over the world. It's certainly cool, but it's always going to be limited in usefulness.
Some areas I can see it being really useful are:
That's about it.
It isnt going to take over, its being put in control by idiots.
generating believable text - scams, placeholder text, and general structure
LLM generated scams are going to such problem. Quality isn't even a problem there as they specifically go for people with poor awareness of these scams, and having a bot that responds with reasonable dialogue will make it that much easier for people to buy into it.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=oqSYljRYDEM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I've graded papers from students who obviously used chatGPT to write them. They were a pass at best. Zero critical synthesis of ideas and application of them to the topic. I'm sure chatGPT has its uses but people really overhype its writing ability. There's more to writing than putting words in the right places.
I mean I would say maybe "regurgitating their training data" is putting it a bit too simple. But it's true, we're currently at the point where the AI can mimic real text. But that's it - no one tells it not to lie rn, the programmatic goal of the AI is to get indistinguishable from real text with no bearing on the truthfulness of the information whatsoever.
Basically we train our AIs to pretend to know, not to know. And sometimes it's good at pretending, sometimes it isn't.
The "right" way to handle what the CEOs are doing would be to let go of a chunk of the staff, then let the rest write their articles with the help of chatgpt. But most CEOs are a bit too gullible when it comes to the abilities of AI.
It's a combination of three things:
1- most people still google things;
2- the more content you have the more organic traffic you're likely to attract from Google;
3- displaying ads on your website makes you money.
Websites full of LLM generated content are just the natural continuation of MFAs (Made For AdSense) and there were lots of tools on sale back then in the 2006~2008 period that promised to automatically create websites for you and fill them with randomized content that is optimized for AdSense.
This reminds me of the short story "The Great Automatic Grammatizator" by Roald Dahl. In the story a machine is invented that can write great stories, but it's creators go around buying the naming rights of authors so people will actually buy their books.
LLM cannot create new concepts, it can only create a mishmash of things it has been fed on.
Just like Hollywood!
Humans aren’t much different. 99.9% of what we create is just a remix of existing parts/ideas. It’s why people spend 12-20 years pre-training on all the existing knowledge in the field they’re going to work in.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't AI generated content not copyrightable? Therefore nothing is stopping someone from taking all their content, rebranding it as "how stuff really works" or something, and then start stealing their business & ad revenue.
This is going to happen for a while. Execs who actually have no clue have now been sold on the idea that AI lets them keep making money without paying labor.
It will fail eventually when the execs eventually take the time to learn what AI is capable of and what it isn't capable of.
Who am I kidding? It'll continue indefinitely because there are few consequences for clueless executives.
Execs won’t take the time to learn that, they will learn it only by losing market share to the competition.
By that time they'll already be at the next company.
"That was two golden parachutes ago, what do I care?"
Businesses should automate the executives instead of labor.
Considering most articles on the internet that don’t come from legitimate newspapers sound like they’re written by a 6-year-old who gets paid by the word, how much worse could it get?
Never ask that
People really don't understand the current state of LLM, like the pictures generated "Its a really good picture of what a dog would look like, it's not actually a dog". Like a police sketch, with a touch of "randomeness" so you don't always get the same picture.
I'm guessing they will try to solve this issue with some cheap human labour to review what is being generated. These verifers will probably not be experts on all the subjects that the llm will be spitting out, more of a "That does kind of look like a dog, APPROVED".
Let's say I'm wrong, and LLM's can make as good of an article as any human. The content would be so saturated (even a tumblr user could now make as good and as much content as one of these companies), I would expect companies to be joining in on all the strikes 😆.
Funny world we are all going into.
Boas Entradas
One thing I disagree with is the assumption that anyone could create the same article by themselves. Coming up with a good prompt is a skill in itself and not everyone is equally good at it. I actually believe a prompt writer is going to be a new profession in the near future.
Bizarre. Not even keep a few editors for... the editing??
I wonder how this will affect the Stuff You Should Know podcsst.
They haven’t been associated for awhile, the company owning HowStuffWorks spun off the podcasting division in 2017 before selling it to iHeartMedia in 2018 https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/iheartmedia-stuff-media-howstuffworks-podcast-acquisition-1202939938/
Oh, great to know!! They are my favorite duo, and I often here them talk about How Stuff Works articles.
Thank you for the link.
I've read articles that were clearly created using ChatGPT, there was no extrapolation to add context/details to illustrate their points, and parts of it read like it just pulled from a Wikipedia page. The tone felt more robotic than pieces they published 6~8 months ago.
ChatGPT can be useful when it's part of a larger writing process, but I have a feeling that sites that create prompts and paste the output as their articles will slowly die-off because the quality isn't there.
I was checking something on a Fandom "wiki" the other day and I swear to god the summary for a bunch of episodes for several shows was either written or rewritten by AI. You can tell because it uses a bunch of nonsense synonyms, like replacing the name Ray with Beam.
We're probing the limits of generative AI right now. I expect a snapback of sorts as people find what does and does not work.
How about instead of all the tracking cookie popups for permission, we force these sites to display a message that the content is AI generated.
Why not both?
Someone should create a blocklist for all these new AI-driven websites.
For me personally thee primary appeal of websites are that there's human authors behind the content... otherwise I'd just ask an 'AI' myself.
Great. Now people are going to read up a bunch of bs generated by a language model and confidently spread around "hallucinations" as facts.
Used to be one of my favourite sites when I was younger. Haven't visited that site in ages. Holy crap, has it gone to complete shit. Like way worse than I thought possible
Creating a market for real human content? Sounds tasty
This seems like a really dumb idea.
I wonder what they will do when the tripe the LLM spews doesn't match the pictures they are showing.
ChatGPT comments on the news:
Prompt : In recent news, the management of "How it's Made" has fired all the writers and editors on the show and intends to replace them with a large language model. What do you think?
ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions or feelings, but I can provide an analysis based on the information available up to my last update in September 2021.
If the management of "How It's Made" decides to fire all the writers and editors on the show and replace them with a large language model like me, there are both potential benefits and drawbacks to consider:
Benefits:
Cost Savings: Employing an AI language model could potentially reduce production costs as it eliminates the need for paying human writers and editors.
Speed and Efficiency: AI models can generate content at a rapid pace, which may allow for more frequent episode releases or updates.
Access to Data: AI models have access to vast amounts of data, which could result in more comprehensive and detailed explanations of the manufacturing processes.
Consistency: AI-generated content can maintain a consistent style and tone throughout the episodes.
Drawbacks:
Lack of Creativity: While AI models can provide factual information, they might struggle to inject creative elements or engage with the audience on a more emotional level.
Human Touch: Human writers and editors bring their unique perspectives and storytelling abilities to the show, which might be missed with an AI-only approach.
Reliability: AI-generated content can sometimes produce errors or inaccurate information, which would require careful human oversight and fact-checking.
Audience Response: The audience's perception of AI-generated content might not be as positive as content created by human professionals, leading to a potential decrease in viewership.
Ultimately, the success of this decision would depend on how well the AI language model can replicate the engaging and informative aspects that made "How It's Made" popular in the first place. It's important for the management to carefully evaluate the pros and cons and ensure a seamless transition if they decide to go down this route. Additionally, audience feedback and receptiveness to the AI-generated content will play a significant role in determining the long-term viability of such a change.
That's interesting, but just so you know it's the website "how stuff works" not the tv show "how it's made"
This is fine. Just let us know so we know what shows to avoid.