[HN Gopher] Show HN: Pledge Your Human-Made Content
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Pledge Your Human-Made Content
AI generated content is on the rise. How can you be sure what
you're reading is 100% human?
Author : jonodonovan
Score : 37 points
Date : 2023-04-28 13:47 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nonbot.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (nonbot.org)
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Like with the photography competition ending up with a winner who
| just generated an image via AI, you're going to get the same bad
| apples validating their AI-generated crap via this as there's no
| validation going on in reality.
|
| They're also incentivizing them with backlinks and validation
| that it is legit content "because a third-party said so".
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Should we also pledge not to use word processors or spell check?
|
| AI and ChatGPT is a tool. When used appropriately, it can be used
| to produce good content. For me, I have used it to make my
| content more engaging and to do things like avoid using the same
| passive verbs over and over again as I sometimes have a tendency
| to do. At worst, it produces shallow or wrong or misleading
| writing, but people also do that.
|
| It will not replace humans providing insightful writing. I think
| it is getting a lot of negative attention in the press because
| the advertising, click driven press is predicated on producing
| lots of words with minimal insight.
| kaeruct wrote:
| Reminds me of https://notbyai.fyi
| RealCodingOtaku wrote:
| I do not like that this exists, this shouldn't need to exist, AI
| or ML should not write articles, but they should just be a
| companion who helps you put things into words if you struggle
| with it.
|
| I guess it is too much to ask for in the clickbait-y,
| monetization per-view driven internet.
| bgun wrote:
| If you've ever searched for recipes online and had to read
| through ten pages of drivel before getting to the actual recipe
| at the bottom, you may have realized that just because articles
| are human-written doesn't make the article worthy of existing.
| SEO made sure of that long ago.
| RealCodingOtaku wrote:
| Yes, and something bad happened does not make another bad
| thing good.
| bgun wrote:
| Where did I say or imply that it was good? What the AI-
| content-apocalypse Chicken Littles seem to constantly miss
| is that the incentive structure of the public web for the
| last 20+ years has rewarded trash content, so the public
| web is an SEO-driven garbage heap. The cost to produce
| trash content is already effectively zero, and AI will
| neither reverse nor repair that fact unless the underlying
| incentive structure changes.
| RealCodingOtaku wrote:
| I said that because SEO (or your entire reply) has
| nothing to do with either the OP or my post said, your
| reply sounded like an argument, sorry if I
| misinterpreted.
|
| But please don't change the topic to something
| irrelevant.
| mxuribe wrote:
| I agree fully with you! Unfortunately, law enforcement should
| not need to exist also...And yet, the incentives and behaviors
| of so many a$$holes in the world requires at least some
| mechanism to curb the bad stuff. (Not saying this not-bot
| effort is effective, but just saying that sometimes in life we
| need something even if not perfect...in order to keep some
| things in check). /sigh
| RealCodingOtaku wrote:
| I don't think it is correct to compare my above opinion with
| law enforcement, it doesn't need to be "enforced", may be use
| it as a nice guideline for publishing stuff.
|
| If someone did write things purely with some algorithm, just
| annotate that it was not written by a human, so that people
| who don't want to read made-up/generated articles can just
| ignore it and move on.
|
| Doing it the reverse way does not make any sense to me, it is
| the same as treating all articles not having "written by
| human" label as generated content. -- in the "law
| enforcement" perspective, this is "guilty until proven
| innocent".
|
| What _can_ and _should_ be enforced is licence checks, like
| reusing things not in public domain should follow the license
| when publishing (looking at you Copilot).
| mxuribe wrote:
| > ...may be use it as a nice guideline for publishing
| stuff.
|
| Totally agree that guidelines/guidance is ideal rather than
| zooming all the way to the enforcement side of the
| spectrum. I think i must have been thinking of "community
| policing" in that there is positive guidance and engagement
| well before actual enforcement is conducted...and your
| comment reminded me of this...so fully agree with you
| there. :-)
|
| > ...If someone did write things purely with some
| algorithm, just annotate that it was not written by a
| human, so that people who don't want to read made-
| up/generated articles can just ignore it and move on...
|
| I've heard others state something similar in this context
| for AI-authored content (or not AI-authoered content as
| whatever the case might be), and I'm entirely in favor of
| this. Its conceptually similar - at least in my mind - to
| "organic" or "fair trade" (or similar) that exists for
| products, which i think is necessary and valuable to
| society.
| genpfault wrote:
| I'm a flesh automaton animated by neurotransmitters and I approve
| of this message!
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| Sorry, I don't understand. How does this work? I haven't kept up
| with SOTA papers, but I thought it was currently not possible to
| detect AI generated content with good confidence?
|
| How do you prevent someone who is generating AI content from
| applying the non-bot badge? If you can't, then what's the point?
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Because it's virtue signaling. People are _seen_ to be doing
| something. It 's a LARP.
| klyrs wrote:
| Use the non-bot badge to feed bots their own effluvia?
| thewataccount wrote:
| I'm not anti-ai.
|
| I think there's a ton of value in 100% human made art, and I
| think AI art is still valid art - but I think it's still useful
| to differentiate the two. It's like how unprocessed photography
| is judged differently from photoshopped art.
|
| Also useful for collecting training data.
|
| However everything already was - and is - ML assisted at this
| point. Any photo from a smartphone, autocorrect from MS word,
| most photo editing, etc. How are those counted? Does github
| copilot count? Not to mention non-ML but still automated work
| with CI's, compilers, templates, etc. Does intellij's
| autocomplete count? One could argue templates/stencils/stamps
| predate computers.
|
| I think there's also a difference between 100% AI made and AI
| assisted work that needs to be differentiated.
| bediger4000 wrote:
| I suspect this is just a way for mega corps to find actual
| artisanal content with which to train their AIs.
| geraneum wrote:
| Ah this came to my mind as well. Although I didn't consider it
| a serious thought. But then if one day we find out that this
| was the purpose (for a similar service), I won't be surprised.
| danwee wrote:
| > AI generated content is on the rise. How can you be sure what
| you're reading is 100% human?
|
| Why is that a concern? When you read a newspaper, how can you be
| sure what you're reading is 100% true? When you watch the news,
| how can you be sure what you're watching is 100% true?
|
| What matters is not to have a "verification badge", what matters
| is to educate yourself to know what to take and what to discard
| regardless of its source of origin.
| ivanmontillam wrote:
| Exactly what I was talking about at [0][1].
|
| Happy to see it happening.
|
| To be clear, I'm not anti-AI. It's just that if I'm going to do
| business with you I want to deal with the human, and this
| includes content.
|
| Reading AI content for stuff I care about, feels like I'm being
| laughed off in the face. It feels fraudulent.
|
| --
|
| [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35531041
|
| [1]: https://www.ivanmontilla.com/blog/certified-human-made
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| This is nonsense. You're falling for the toupee fallacy. You
| have no idea you're reading AI content when it's sufficiently
| good enough for you to not recognize it. Therefore, you view
| all AI generated content as bad.
| jruohonen wrote:
| Nice to see also "anti-AI" innovation. Something like this would
| be much needed also for newspapers.
| pc86 wrote:
| Why? To both statements.
| jruohonen wrote:
| The first was mildly sensed humor. But the second one in my
| opinion is important for ensuring the integrity in
| journalism, i.e. a journalist should disclose his or her use
| of AI. You can count the sport news, financial summaries,
| etc. out.
| lusus_naturae wrote:
| Why does it matter if an AI wrote the article, though? Does
| the nature of what's being reported change because of who
| or what is doing the reporting. You can still hold the
| organization accountable for any infactual or inaccurate
| statements. Having a human to hold accountable seems
| unnecessary and onerous.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| An organization can not be accountable, unless a human is
| accountable.
| flangola7 wrote:
| Someone ordered the use of AI and someone gave it the
| prompts. Those someones have names that can be written on
| a subpoena or warrant.
| pc86 wrote:
| We're talking about (real) journalism, so presumably
| there's going to be a byline. That person is responsible,
| as is the editor, whether AI is used or not.
| jruohonen wrote:
| Accountability is one thing; as actionfromafar notes
| below, a legal person may not be accountable in all
| cases. Transparency is another thing. The third thing
| relates to ethics; here the guidance is still in the
| making, but many have indeed stated that a journalist
| shouldn't put his or her name to a story generated by AI.
|
| https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/digital-
| journalism/ai-...
| bediger4000 wrote:
| I already only read the business section for laughs.
| Brendinooo wrote:
| What does 100% human mean?
|
| Not being obtuse, trying to figure out if the threshold is, like
| "ideas 100% my own, no auto spelling and grammar check, etc" or
| if it's more "I used GPT to workshop a page title but didn't
| copy/paste anything".
| drdaeman wrote:
| It's like "natural ingredients". Consumers seem to like it, and
| it doesn't really mean anything that you can't redefine to your
| benefit.
|
| Looking at the linked page (which is claimed to be "human-
| made"), I'm sure that it was made with a significant automation
| assistance. A template engine had compiled the HTML (or someone
| was very sloppy with indentation and did a lot of copying and
| pasting), SVGs code was surely generated by a machine rather
| than coded by hand (and surely the fonts in those used a bunch
| of algorithms too), etc etc. The fact that they haven't used
| some particular kind of matrix multiplication feels irrelevant.
| cyrialize wrote:
| I wonder if it's better to just say "No language models were
| used to generate this text".
| Brendinooo wrote:
| Yeah, I dunno. It's a sorites paradox. I'm annoyed when a
| search engine delivers me a site that's clearly GPT-generated
| rubbish (and greatly annoyed when it's not 100% clearly GPT-
| generated rubbish, but likely is), but it's unrealistic to
| say that something is 100% human also.
|
| I'd love a way to generally assure me that there's a human
| behind the thing I'm reading, but I'm not even sure I can
| define exactly what I'm after when I say that.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| This endeavor is most akin to a performance art gesture--and not
| at a bad one.
|
| Specifically because of the silence around every critical aspect
| of what this might mean, and why someone might pursue such a
| pledge, or what verification means, and with what aspiration.
|
| All that is provided AFAICT is a "how"...
|
| ...and almost all that results is a wake of perplexity,
| punctuated by a froth of debate and publicity. Which I take to be
| the intended product.
| [deleted]
| rchaud wrote:
| Nice idea, but this is self-selecting groups of people that
| already would not be bad actors. Does this do anything except act
| as an "open letter" type pledge?
| detrites wrote:
| Can some things, eg writing, actually ever be "verified"?
|
| Because if it is impossible, sites like this further what we
| already have. A mix of AI and human, and the inability to -
| definitively - discern.
| thewataccount wrote:
| Most likely not https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11156
|
| tl;dr - it's highly unreliable to detect them and because of
| the risk of false-positives it's not likely a good idea to rely
| on it.
|
| IMO the only way forward is a reputation based system.
|
| Also moving forward identity verification might have to be
| cryptographic (IM NOT SAYING CRYPTOCURRENCY) because
| impersonating text/video/voice convincingly is becoming doable
| for home users.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-28 23:02 UTC)