ChatGPT lies then gaslights reporter with fake transcript

[Jfdlsjfd]

It will take a few years to shake out I think. The current AI investment is probably a bubble so there will be some drawdown. Once that happens, do companies keep using it, or move on? Do those that use it do better? That will be the test.

I'd say decades. The dotcom people exploded in 2001, but I don't think 2001 was representative of how widespread the Internet use is now. It is still called "new technology" in some places... Earlier changes took even more time but I'd agree that the rate of change is becoming quicker, to a point.

 

[Stalker0]

Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell

The Kurzgesagt team (who does really amazing and well researched science videos). Just did a pretty solid video on AI slop and the long term concerns with it.

 

[Umbran]

How did it come about where I'm being made to feel like I have to defend AI??

That's actually a pretty good question. I think you might be setting yourself up for that feeling.

I don't know you personally. And what I am about to say is a demonstrable thing about people in general, not necessarily you at this instant...

People, once they've put an (even minor) stake in the ground, can feel strong needs to defend that position. To the primate parts of our minds, being told we are wrong can feel like a social challenge to ourselves. And, to that primate mind, losing that challenge is loss of status in the social group, which, to primates, translates into loss of security.

Which is how folks sometimes make some minor offhand assertion, and end up in knockdown, drag-out, name-calling cursefests online.

Where do I say that I think AI won't result in widespread job losses, because I've said that it will repeatedly in this thread. I've even said I believe I have a MORE negative outlook on society as a result of AI than most of the readers of this thread. I even used the word "apocalyptic."

Again, a thing can be both good and bad at the same time, and I feel like I have to reiterate that I did not invent AI. I use it because it's a valuable, useful tool in my personal and professional life. Why does my saying that I think it's great for me lead to me being treated like I'm the spokesperson for the pro-AI lobby?

First off, I don't think you got treated like a spokesperson until you started making the arguments that spokespeople make.

But, from there... look at those paragraphs for a moment. Think about what you are saying.

Apocalyptic. But, you go ahead and use it anyway. Do you see how that's a bit of a mixed message?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Apocalyptic. But, you go ahead and use it anyway. Do you see how that's a bit of a mixed message?

Isn't that just human nature? Using cars is apocalyptic and we (generally) are still doing it because we think the advantage outweigh the drawbacks. Moving goods all over the world is apocalyptic and we still buy things on Amazon/Temu and so on. That's the way humans seem to behave. Especially when the gratification is immediate (you get to your destination, you get a shiny new thing to own) and the bad result is far away. Humans do that with every detrimental thing. The key to success is more in mitigation than in avoidance, reaping benefits and trying to solve the underlying problem (green energy, maybe, in this analogy).

 

[Sacrosanct]

It will take a few years to shake out I think. The current AI investment is probably a bubble so there will be some drawdown.

My prediction is that it will be like the tech bubble of 2000. it will burst, but then will recover and dominate. It's not going away any more than the internet went away after the bubble. Remember right before it burst, and companies were putting out ads like this?

 

[Morrus]

I don't share these views, but if I were to be convinced by them as part of the discussion, then there would be problem at all with AI, because no sane person would ever adopt it in a professional context, and absolutely no job would be threatened. No artist would ever lose a commission to an AI if it wasn't able to draw at all, or only "AI slop" without any merit, or only six-fingered disfigured persons.

I challenge you -- go and look at the many slop AI-generated 'companion' books on Amazon which instantly come out along with every bestseller. They're absolute crud. AI cannot write books.

Clearly your assertion that nobody would use it in that context is false. People do use it.

So I stand by my use of the word 'slop'. It is prevalent and, contrary to your assertion, it is used.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I challenge you -- go and look at the many slop AI-generated 'companion' books on Amazon which instantly come out along with every bestseller. They're absolute crud. AI cannot write books.

That's possible. The quality is certainly not going to win any prize.

Clearly your assertion that nobody would use it in that context is false. People do use it.

It is because either:
1. It is riding over the success of best-seller and mislead the potential buyer into thinking it's related to the original -- in which case the problem isn't quality of the output, but legality of the advertizement and it should certainly be removed.
2. It is... bad but good enough for buyers. Much like the million or so listening to AI generated music instead of Haydn.

Is it great? No. Is the market a good indicator of greatness? No, if we go with Van Gogh never selling a single work. It might be satisfying enough for the low price and thus meeting the need of people (reading low quality "companion" books that sound like fan-fiction). And if it satisfies the public, it is not slop. It might not meet your stringent standard, but if it is good enough for people who buy it, it can't be called slop. It is consumer-level.

Much like with images. Do image model produce great works of art? Certainly not. Do we need Jeff Koons to design our online RPG tokens? Certainly not either. Image generator do consumer-level result, which meet the need of the consumer. If artists are losing commissions right now, it is because AI doesn't produce slop the customers don't want, it's because it is producing a satisfying result. Certainly not perfect, but enough to fill the need.

Of course, I can see how one could call consumer-level anything slop, but that's elititist, I think, or a binary fallacy. You can have average-quality products that consumers will enjoy (a local burger joint, for example) without it gaining Michelin stars. I wouldn't call the burger joint slop, even if it only satisfies its customers.

 

[dragoner]

Related Q: AI skeptics, how many of you have tried "deep research"? It does much better with returning a variety of cited sources.

It really doesn't.

Spacey Space

spacey.space

Where she shows it cited a non-existent paper of hers.

 

[MoonSong]

OK, so the net effect of AI is that companies are spending a few (thousands) bucks on AI solution in the hope that the increased productivity will allow them to get the same work done with fewer people, leading to increased profit, and they are fooled by the AI selling geniuses because there is, in fact, no increased productivity. So they have a tool that replaced "making things slowly" with a tool that "makes things quick but you have to babysit", and there is no increase in productivity. So there is no way to fire anyone and there is no economic effect except the cost of paying an AI solution that will either cancelled after some time, or get adopted out of habit, resulting in a few less benefits for shareholders. If I follow you, the net effect on AI on business will be akin to buying pet rocks for workers. Why not: it's totally possible that all the economic forecast by the Fed and ECB (not to mention private think tanks and the anecdotal reports of people actually satisfied with their use of the technology) are all wrongs. After all, there is a possibility they are all morons and that their assessment is junk, or all corrupt and paid by AI companies, and there is no productivity increase to be had. But then, there is no job to remove, since there is no productivity gain to be had.

The thing is, they started firing people the moment they signed up for these services. Even if in the end everything rebounds and people get hired again, that doesn't change the human cost of lots of people losing their jobs in the middle of a huge hiring freeze and the high stress from an increased workload for those who didn't.

 

[Morrus]

That's possible. The quality is certainly not going to win any prize.



It is because either:
1. It is riding over the success of best-seller and mislead the potential buyer into thinking it's related to the original -- in which case the problem isn't quality of the output, but legality of the advertizement and it should certainly be removed.
2. It is... bad but good enough for buyers. Much like the million or so listening to AI generated music or Lady Gaga instead of Bach.

Is it great? No. Is the market a good indicator of greatness? No, if we go with Van Gogh never selling a single work. It might be satisfying enough for the low price and thus meeting the need of people (reading low quality "companion" books that sound like fan-fiction). And if it satisfies the public, it is not slop. It might not meet your stringent standard, but if it is good enough for people who buy it, it can't be called slop. It is consumer-level.

Much like with images. Do image model produce great works of art? Certainly not. Do we need Jeff Koons to design our online RPG tokens? Certainly not either. They do consumer-level result, which meet the need of the consumer. If artists are losing commissions right now, it is because AI doesn't produce slop the customers don't want, it's because it is producing a satisfying result. Certainly not perfect, but enough to fill the need.

Of course, I can see how one could call consumer-level anything slop, but that's elititist, I think, or a binary fallacy. You can have average-quality products that consumers will enjoy (a burger joint, for example) without it gaining Michelin stars. I wouldn't call the burger joint slop, even if it only satisfies its customers.

Look at it. Don't defend it and insist it's not slop without even looking at it. Just... look at it. Then tell me it's not slop.

Don't insist it's not slop, don't invent my "stringent standards", don't describe it as "consumer level" or "average-quality", don't call me "elitist" when you haven't even seen what you're describing.

Because, no offence, but that's slop, too. It's a waste of both of our time.