<story><title>AI has poisoned its own well</title><url>https://tracydurnell.com/2023/06/18/ai-has-poisoned-its-own-well/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>sogen</author><text>An aspect never mentioned is that this data only fed from active users, which are the minority of people.&lt;p&gt;Majority of online users are lurkers, so all of these models are extremely biased on whom they got their information from.</text></comment>
<story><title>AI has poisoned its own well</title><url>https://tracydurnell.com/2023/06/18/ai-has-poisoned-its-own-well/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>raxxorraxor</author><text>If the generated content is vetted by an adversarial network, we theoretically have a recursively improving AI. Perhaps by introducing more randomness we could even reach some form of evolution that can introduce new concepts, since limited scopes is still what gives AIs away in the end. That is the optimistic perspective at least.&lt;p&gt;On the net, search and content quality is already pretty low for certain key words. If a word is part of the news cycle, expect hundreds of badly researched news paper articles, some of which might be generated as well. Or if they weren&amp;#x27;t, you wouldn&amp;#x27;t notice a difference if they become that.&lt;p&gt;But I don&amp;#x27;t believe the companies made a mistake. They could even protect their position with the data they already acquired and classified. Maybe a quality label would say genuine human®.&lt;p&gt;If all that fails large companies would also be able to employ thousands of low wage workers to classify new content. The increasing memory problem persists, I think that is a race where the model that can extract data as efficiently as possible will win. But without the data sets, there is no way to verify performance.</text></comment>