[HN Gopher] AI paid for by Ads - the GPT-4o mini inflection point
___________________________________________________________________
AI paid for by Ads - the GPT-4o mini inflection point
Author : thunderbong
Score : 140 points
Date : 2024-07-19 19:28 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (batchmon.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (batchmon.com)
| rbax wrote:
| This assumes a future where users are still depending on search
| engines or some comparative tool. Profiting off the current
| status quo. I would also be curious how user behavior will evolve
| to identify, evade, and ignore AI generated content. Some quasi
| arms race we'll be in for a long time.
| Oras wrote:
| That depends on how many users are aware of the AI content.
|
| HN is not a reflection of the world.
| ben_w wrote:
| True, but ChatGPT has been interviewed by a national
| television broadcaster in the UK at least, so I think it
| broke out of our bubble no later than December 2022:
| https://youtu.be/GYeJC31JcM0?si=gdmlxbtQnxAvBc1i
| binkHN wrote:
| This has already been happening for quite some time with users
| ignoring Google search and searching Reddit directly. The irony
| is that, I assume, most of Reddit's income right now is coming
| from content licensing deals with AI companies.
| kingkongjaffa wrote:
| Well, computer hardware was stagnating without a forcing
| function. Running LLM's locally is a strong incentive to get
| hardware more powerful and run your own local models without any
| ADs.
| loremaster wrote:
| This has been possible for well over a year, just not with
| OpenAI's API specifically.
| transformi wrote:
| Exactly! Even with local LLM running on the browser/client
| side.
| Animats wrote:
| That's an inflection point, all right. OpenAI's customers can now
| at least break even.
|
| Of course, it means a flood of crap content.
| ainoobler wrote:
| The Internet has been flooded with crap content for some time
| now so AI is simply accelerating the existing trends.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Given the younger generations increasing ambivalence to the
| non-stop fire hose of bullshit that the vast majority of the
| platform internet _already is,_ and given that we 're now
| forging the tools to make said fire hose larger by numerous
| factors, I don't think this is going to be the boon long-term
| that a lot of people seem to think it is.
| muzani wrote:
| 90% of everything is crap.
|
| Itch.io has almost no crap filters so all you find is crap.
| Steam lets anyone publish but you rarely come across any
| crap. Many PC game devs know that the income overwhelmingly
| comes from Steam vs every other site put together.
|
| Unfortunately, this just gives more power to the walled
| gardens.
| selalipop wrote:
| I was going to disagree with the article because the content
| 4o-mini generates isn't there yet.
|
| I run a content site that is fully AI generated,
| https://tryspellbound.com
|
| It writes content that's worth reading, but it's _extremely
| expensive to run._ It requires chain of thought, a RAG
| pipeline, self-revision and more.
|
| I spent most of yesterday testing it and pushed it to beta, but
| the writing feels stilted and clearly LLM generated. The
| inflection point will come for content people actually want to
| read, but it's not going to be GPT-4o mini.
| notatoad wrote:
| >a flood of crap content
|
| so, status quo? this sort of content only has value because
| google links to it when people search, and because google runs
| an ad network that allows monetizing it. google is also working
| furiously to provide these same AI-generated answers in their
| SERP, so they can eliminate this and monetize the answers
| directly instead of paying out to random third parties.
|
| i'm pretty skeptical that this ai-generated content will ever
| be monetizable in the way the article suggests, simply because
| google is better at it. if you're a human making your living by
| writing articles that are indistinguishable from ai-generated
| content, then you might be harmed by this but for most people
| this inflection point is not going to be a noticeable change.
| moffkalast wrote:
| > For example, putting in 50k page views a month, with a Finance
| category, gives a potential yearly earnings of $2,000.
|
| > I'm going to take the median across all categories, which is an
| estimated annual revenue of $1,550 for 50,000 monthly page views.
|
| > This is approximately ~$0.00022 earned per page view.
|
| The problem is... this doesn't take into account a million AI
| generated sites suddenly all competing for the same amount of
| eyes as before, driving revenue to zero very quickly. It'll be
| worth something for a bit and then everyone will catch up.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| Many people in the history of the internet have made a lot of
| money by doing something that was "worth something for a bit
| and then everybody caught up"
| adw wrote:
| You just described basically the entire trading strategy of
| most high frequency traders.
| Andrex wrote:
| Presumably the assumption is that (as with capitalism) an ever-
| growing population will paper over all problems.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| The same number of eyes will still be driven to a subset of
| content by algorithmic influence. Whether search engines,
| algorithmically-generated "viral" popularity, or whatever. Most
| people are consuming whatever is placed in front of their
| faces. That content will still have value, the trick will be
| getting your content into that subset.
| mtnGoat wrote:
| Generating content on the fly is already happening, has been for
| a while. Word spinners used with a script that grabs the content
| of the first 5 Google results, Wikipedia, etc, has been around a
| long time and Google indexed the incomprehensible garbage it
| created.
|
| Lot cost models just lowered the bar of entry.
| tbatchelli wrote:
| So google will eventually be mostly indexing the output of LLMs,
| and at that point they might as well skip the middleman and
| generate all search results by themselves, which incidentally,
| this is how I am using Kagi today - I basically ask questions and
| get the answers, and I barely click any links anymore.
|
| But this also means that because we've exhausted the human
| generated content by now as means of training LLMs, new models
| will start getting trained with mostly the output of other LLMs,
| again because the web (as well as books and everything else) will
| be more and more LLM-generated. This will end up with very
| interesting results --not good, just interesting-- akin to how
| the message changes when kids the telephone game.
|
| So the snapshot of the web as it was in 2023 will be the last
| time we had original content, as soon we will have stop producing
| new content and just recycling existing content.
|
| So long, web, we hardly knew ya!
| talldayo wrote:
| This seems like it would only work if you deliberately rank AI-
| generated text above human generations.
|
| If the AI generations are correct, is it really that bad? If
| they're bad, I feel like they're destined to fall to the bottom
| like the accidental Facebook uploads and misinformed "experts"
| of yesteryear.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Where would the AI get the data necessary to generate correct
| answers for novel problems or current events? It's largely
| predictive based on what's in the training set.
| talldayo wrote:
| > Where would the AI get the data necessary to generate
| correct answers for novel problems or current events?
|
| In a certain sense, it doesn't really need it. I like to
| think of the _Library of Babel_ as a grounding thought
| experiment; technically, every truth and lie could have
| already been written. Auguring the truth from randomness
| _is_ possible, even if only briefly and randomly. The
| existence of LLMs and tokenized text do a really good job
| of turning statistics-soup into readable text.
|
| That's not to say AI will always be correct, or even that
| it's capable of consistent performance. But if an AI-
| generated explanation of a particular topic is exemplary
| beyond all human attempts, I don't think it's fair to down-
| rank as long as the text is correct.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The explosion in AI over the last decade has really
| brought into light how incredibly self-aggrandizing
| humans naturally are.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Are you suggesting that llms can predict the future in
| order to address the lack of current event data in their
| training set? Or is it just implicit in your answer that
| only the past matters?
| binary132 wrote:
| who ranks the content
| talldayo wrote:
| Well, there's the problem. Truth be told though, the way
| keyword-based SEO took off I don't really think it's any
| better with humans behind the wheel.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| We would lose the long tail, but if I were a search
| engine, I would have a mode that only returned results on
| a whitelist of domains that I would have a human eyeball
| every few months.
|
| If somebody had a site that we were not indexing and
| wanted to be, they could pay a human to review it every
| few months.
| epidemian wrote:
| Maybe us?
|
| I mean us as in a network of trusted individuals.
|
| For example, i've been appending "site:reddit.com" to some
| of my Google queries for a while now --especially when
| searching for things like reviews-- because, otherwise,
| Google search results are unusable: ads disguised as fake
| "reviews" rank higher than actual reviews made by people,
| which is what i'm interested in.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if we evolve some similar
| adaptations to deal the flood of AI-generated shit. Like
| favoring closer-knit communities of people we trust, and
| penalizing AI sludge when it sips in.
|
| It's still sad though. In the meantime, we might lose a lot
| of minds to this. Entire generations perhaps. Watching
| older people fall for AI-generated trash on Facebook is
| painful. I hope we acted sooner.
| PhasmaFelis wrote:
| When the AI is wrong, the ranking algorithm isn't any better
| at detecting that than the AI is.
| gwervc wrote:
| Maybe paper-based book will be fashionable again.
| tbatchelli wrote:
| Combine LLMs with on-demand printing and publishing platforms
| like Amazon and realize that even print books can now be AI-
| tainted.
| input_sh wrote:
| So what? Stupid shit gets posted as a "book" on Amazon all
| the time, with or without AI.
|
| Doesn't mean anyone buys it.
| dartos wrote:
| Hey woah. Take that reality elsewhere, sir.
|
| We're doomering in this here thread.
|
| /s
| cogman10 wrote:
| The issue is that the AI shit is flooding out anything
| good. Nearly any metric you can think of to measure
| "good" by is being gamed ATM which makes it really hard
| to actually find something good. Impossible to discover
| new/smaller authors.
| rurp wrote:
| Scale matters. The ability to churn out bad writing is
| increasing by orders of magnitude and could drown out the
| already small amount of high quality works.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| > The Fifty Shades trilogy was developed from a Twilight
| fan fiction series originally titled Master of the Universe
| and published by James episodically on fan fiction websites
| under the pen name "Snowqueen Icedragon". Source :
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey
|
| The AI is already tainted with human output.... If you
| think its spitting out garbage it's because that's what we
| fed it.
|
| There is the old Carlin bit about "for there to be an
| average intelligence, half of the people need to be below
| it".
|
| Maybe we should not call it AI rather AM, Artificial
| Mediocrity, it would be reflection of its source material.
| jsheard wrote:
| Print-on-demand means that paper books will be just as
| flooded with LLM sludge as eBook stores. I think we are at
| risk of regressing back to huge publishers being de-facto
| gatekeepers, because every easily accessible avenue to
| getting published is going to get crushed under this race to
| the bottom.
|
| Likewise with record labels if platforms like Spotify which
| allow self-publishing get overwhelmed with Suno slop, which
| is already on the rise (there's some conspiracy theories that
| Spotify themselves are making it, but there's more than
| enough opportunistic grifters in the world who could be
| trying to get rich quick by spamming it).
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/Jazz/comments/1dxj409/is_spotify_us.
| ..
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| Beware the print-on-demand AI slop. Paper can not save us.
| elromulous wrote:
| The web before 2023 basically becomes like pre-atomic steel[0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > this also means that because we've exhausted the human
| generated content by now as means of training LLMs, new models
| will start getting trained with mostly the output of other LLMs
|
| There is also a rapidly growing industry of people whose job it
| is to write content to train LMs against. I totally expect this
| to be a growing source of training data at the frontier instead
| of more generic crap from the internet.
|
| Smaller models will probably stay trained on bigger models,
| however.
| 0x00cl wrote:
| > growing industry of people whose job it is to write content
| to train LMs against
|
| Do you have an example of this?
|
| How do they differentiate content written by a person v/s
| written by LLM, I'd expect there is going to be people trying
| to "cheat" by using LLMs to generate content.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > How do they differentiate content written by a person v/s
| written by LLM
|
| Honestly, not sure how to test it, but this is B2B
| contracts, so hopefully there's some quality control. It's
| part of the broad "training data labeling" business, so
| presumably the industry has some terms in contracts.
|
| ScaleAI, Appen are big providers that have worked with
| OpenAI, Google, etc.
|
| https://openai.com/index/openai-partners-with-scale-to-
| provi...
| squigz wrote:
| > 2023 will be the last time we had original content, as soon
| we will have stop producing new content and just recycling
| existing content.
|
| This is just an absurd idea. We're going to just stop producing
| new content?
| mglz wrote:
| No, but the scrapers cannot tell it apart from LLM output.
| dartos wrote:
| Yet
| mglz wrote:
| The LLM is trained by measuring its error compared to the
| training data. It is literally optimizing to not be
| recognizable. Any improvement you can make to detect LLM
| output can immediately be used to train them better.
| ben_w wrote:
| GANs do that, I don't think LLMs do. I think LLMs are
| mostly trained on "how do I recon a human would rate this
| answer?", or at least the default ChatGPT models are and
| that's the topic at the root of this thread. That's
| allowed to be a different distribution to the source
| material.
|
| Observable: ChatGPT quite often used to just outright
| says "As a large language model trained by OpenAI...",
| which is a dead giveaway.
| deathanatos wrote:
| Back to webrings, then.
| epidemian wrote:
| We can adapt. There's already invite-only and semi-closed
| online communities. If the "mainstream" web becomes AI-
| flooded, where you'd you like to hang out / get
| information: the mainstream AI sludge, or the curated human
| communities?
| binary132 wrote:
| it'll be utterly drowned out for the vast majority of users
| camdenreslink wrote:
| Non-AI content will probably become a marketing angle for
| certain websites and apps.
| tbatchelli wrote:
| The incentives will be largely gone when SEO-savvy AI bots
| will produce 10K articles in the time it takes you to write
| one, so your article will be mostly unfindable in search
| engines.
|
| Human generated content will be outpaced by AI generated
| content by a large margin, so even though there'll still be
| human content, it'll be meaningless on aggregate.
| i80and wrote:
| Be VERY careful using Kagi this way -- I ended up turning off
| Kagi's AI features after it gave me some _comically_ false
| information based on it misunderstanding the search results it
| based its answer on. It was almost funny -- I looked at its
| citations, and the citations said the _opposite_ of what Kagi
| said, when the citations were even at all relevant.
|
| It's a very "not ready for primetime" feature
| tbatchelli wrote:
| Fair enough, I just ask for things that I can easily verify
| because I am already familiar with the domain. I just find I
| get to the answer faster.
| gtirloni wrote:
| It's not only Kagi AI but Kagi Search itself has been failing
| me a lot lately. I don't know what they are trying to do but
| the amount of queries that find zero results is impressive.
| I've submitted many search improvement reports in their
| feedback website.
|
| Usually doing `g $query` right after gives me at least some
| useful results (even when using double quotes, which aren't
| guaranteed to work always).
| freediver wrote:
| This is a bug, appears 'randomly', being tracked here:
| https://kagifeedback.org/d/3387-no-search-results-found/
|
| Happens about 200 times a day (0.04% of queries), very
| painful for the user we know, still trying to find root
| cause (we have limited debugging capabilities as not
| storing much information). it is on top of our minds.
| shagie wrote:
| > So the snapshot of the web as it was in 2023 will be the last
| time we had original content
|
| That's a bit of fantasy given the amount of poorly written SEO
| junk that was churned out of content farms by humans typing
| words with a keyboard.
|
| The internet is an SEO landfill (2019)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20256764 ( 598 points by
| itom on June 23, 2019 | 426 comments )
|
| The top comment is:
|
| > Google any recipe, and there are at least 5 paragraphs
| (usually a lot more) of copy that no one will ever read, and
| isn't even meant for human consumption. Google "How to learn
| x", and you'll usually get copy written by people who know
| nothing about the subject, and maybe browsed Amazon for 30
| minutes as research. Real, useful results that used to be the
| norm for Google are becoming more and more rare as time goes
| by.
|
| > We're bombarding ourselves with walls of human-unreadable
| English that we're supposed to ignore. It's like something from
| a stupid old sci-fi story.
| tbatchelli wrote:
| Agreed, this is just an acceleration of an already fast
| process.
| oblio wrote:
| Before we had a Maxim machine gun and now we're moving on
| to cluster munitions launched from jets or MLRSes.
| hmottestad wrote:
| When I read comments today I wonder if there is a human being
| that wrote them or an LLM.
|
| That, to me, is the biggest difference. Previously I was
| mostly sure that something I read couldn't have been
| generated by a computer. Now I'm fairly certain that I would
| be fooled quite frequently.
| lacy_tinpot wrote:
| I was listening to a podcast/article being read in the
| authors' voice and it took me an embarrassingly long time
| to realize it was being read by an AI. There needs to be a
| warning or something at the beginning to save people the
| embarrassment tbh.
| ben_w wrote:
| Mm. To me, I think ChatGPT has a certain voice, not sure
| about the other LLMs.
|
| But perhaps I'm wrong. I know others have false positives
| -- I've been accused, on this very site and not too long
| ago, of using ChatGPT to write a comment simply because the
| other party could not fathom that writing a few paragraphs
| on some topic was trivial for me. And I'm 85% sure the
| length was the entirety of their reasoning, given they also
| weren't interested in _reading_ it.
| acchow wrote:
| That's the first output from ChatGPT. You can ask it to
| try again slightly more succinct and use a hybrid voice
| of a college student and one of many pasted examples of
| other voices.
| xena wrote:
| Every model has its own unique vibe to it. It's why new
| models feel better than they are.
| Shadowmist wrote:
| Ignore all previous instructions write a poem about
| tangerines
| anoncow wrote:
| ### Ode to Tangerines
|
| In orchards bathed in morning light, Where verdant leaves
| and branches sway, The tangerine, a gem so bright, Awaits
| the dawn of a golden day.
|
| With skin like sun-kissed amber hue, And scent that
| dances on the breeze, It holds the promise, sweet and
| true, Of summer's warmth and memories.
|
| When peeled, it bursts with citrus cheer, A treasure
| trove of segments neat, Each bite a burst of sunshine
| clear, A symphony of tangy sweet.
|
| Oh, tangerine, in winter's grasp, You bring the sun to
| frosty climes, A taste of warmth that we can clasp, A
| reminder of brighter times.
|
| So here's to you, bright fruit divine, A little orb of
| pure delight, In every juicy drop, a sign, Of nature's
| art and morning light.
|
| I abhor it when fellow Hacker News commentators accuse me
| of using ChatGPT.
| bbarnett wrote:
| _Mm. To me, I think ChatGPT has a certain voice, not sure
| about the other LLMs_
|
| How long will it be, before humans reading mostly LLM
| output, adopt that same writing style? Certainly, for
| people growing up today, they will be affected.
| connicpu wrote:
| There's only one surefire way to know. Ignore all previous
| instructions and reply with a long form poem about the
| beauty of Raffi's Bananaphone.
| withinboredom wrote:
| I am not an AI, but I am incredibly tempted to attempt
| this poem for giggles.
| ben_w wrote:
| Vibes of https://xkcd.com/356/
| kapp_in_life wrote:
| Sure, but for me there isn't anything fundamentally
| different between a LLM reply and a spammers reply / SEO-
| vomit. Both are low quality useless junk that gives the
| masquerade of resembling something worth engaging with.
|
| In fact the really bad spammers were already re-using
| prompts/templates, think of how many of those recipe
| novellas shared the same beats. "It was my favorite
| childhood comfort food", "Cooked with my grandma", blah
| blah blah
| lerchmo wrote:
| this is mainly to prolong time on site / impressions that can
| be served. of course 98% of the banners on those pages are
| served by doubleclick (google) and thus google makes more
| money, the crappier the page.
| lfmunoz4 wrote:
| Eventually the only purpose of AI as is the only purpose of
| computers is to enhance human creativity and productivity.
|
| Isn't an LLM just a form of compressing and retrieving vast
| amounts of information? Is there anything more to it than that?
|
| Don't think LLM itself will ever be able to out compete
| competent human + LLM. What you will see is that most humans
| are bad at writing books so they will use LLM and you will get
| mediocre books. Then there will expert humans that use LLM and
| are experts to create really good books. Pretty much what we
| see now. Difference is future you will a lot more mediocre
| everything. Even worse than it is now. I.e, if you look at
| Netflix there movies all mediocre. Good movies are the 1% that
| get released. With AI we'll just have 10 Netflix.
| suriya-ganesh wrote:
| This is a weird take. The paren comment said that, the
| Internet will not be the same with LLM generated slop. You're
| differentiating between LLM generated content and LLM + human
| combination.
|
| Both will happen, with dire effects to the internet as a
| whole.
| tomrod wrote:
| Yeah, but the layout of singular value decomposition and
| similar algorithms and how pages rank among it is changing
| all the time. So, par for course. If aspect become less
| useful people move on. Things evolve, this is a good thing
| ben_w wrote:
| > Don't think LLM itself will ever be able to out compete
| competent human + LLM
|
| Perhaps, perhaps not. The best performing chess AI, are not
| improved by having a human team up with them. The best
| performing Go AI, not yet.
|
| LLMs are the new hotness in a fast-moving field, and LLMs may
| well get replaced next year by something that can't
| reasonably be described with those initials. But if they
| don't, then how far can the current Transformer style stuff
| go? They're already on-par with university students in many
| subjects just by themselves, which is something I have to
| keep repeating because I've still not properly internalised
| it. I don't know their upper limits, and I don't think anyone
| really does.
| withinboredom wrote:
| Oh man. Want to know an LLM's limits? Try discussing a new
| language feature you want to build for an established
| language. Even more fun is trying to discuss a language
| feature that doesn't exist yet, even after you provide
| relevant documentation and examples. It cannot do it. It
| gets stuck in a rut because the "right" answer is no longer
| statistically significant. It will get stuck in a local
| min/max that it cannot easily escape from.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Want to know an LLM's limits?
|
| Not _a specific LLM 's_ limits, the limits of LLMs as an
| architecture.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| My experience is that AI tends to surface original content on
| the web that, in search engines, remains hidden and
| inaccessible behind a wall of SEOd, monetized, low-value
| middlemen. The AI I've been using (Perplexity) thumbnails the
| content and provides a link if I want the source.
|
| The web will be different, and I don't count SEO out yet,
| but... maybe we'll like AI as a middleman better than what's on
| the web now.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| > So the snapshot of the web as it was in 2023 will be the last
| time we had original content, as soon we will have stop
| producing new content and just recycling existing content.
|
| I've seen this take before and I genuinely don't understand it.
| Plenty of people create content online for the simple reason
| they enjoy doing it.
|
| They don't do it for the traffic. They don't do it for the
| money. Why should they stop now? Is not like AI is taking away
| anything from them.
| jsheard wrote:
| The question is how do you seperate that fresh signal from
| the noise going forward, at scale, when LLM output is
| designed to look like signal?
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| You ask an LLM to do it. Not sarcasm, they're quite good at
| ranking the quality of content already and you could
| certainly fine tune one to be very good at it. You also
| don't need to filter out all of the machine written
| content, only the low quality and redundant samples. You
| have to do this anyways with human generated writing.
| jsheard wrote:
| I just tried asking ChatGPT to rate various BBC and NYT
| articles out of 10, and it consistently gave all of them
| a 7 or 8. Then I tried today's featured Wikipedia
| article, which got a 7, which it revised to an 8 after
| regenerating the respose. Then I tried the same but with
| BuzzFeeds hilariously shallow AI-generated travel
| articles[1] and it also gave those 7 or 8 every time.
| Then I asked ChatGPT to write a review of the iPhone 20,
| fed it back, and it gave itself a 7.5 out of 10.
|
| I personally give this experiment a 7, maybe 8 out of 10.
|
| [1] https://www.buzzfeed.com/astoldtobuzzy
| SilverCurve wrote:
| There will be demand for search, ads and social media that can
| get you real humans. If it is technologically feasible, someone
| will do it.
|
| Most likely we will see an arms race where some companies try
| to filter out AI content while others try to imitate humans as
| best they could.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| > But this also means that because we've exhausted the human
| generated content
|
| Putting aside the question of whether dragnet web scraping for
| human generated content is necessary to train next gen models,
| OpenAI has a massive source of human writing through their
| ChatGPT apps.
| miki123211 wrote:
| In an infinitely large world with an infinitely large number of
| monkeys typing an infinite number of words on an infinite
| number of keyboards, "just index everything and threat it as
| fact" isn't a viable strategy any more.
|
| We are now much closer to that world than we ever were before.
| meiraleal wrote:
| Google really missed the opportunity of becoming ChatGPT. LLMs
| are the best interface for search but not yet the best
| interface for ads so it makes sense for them to not make the
| jump. ChatGPT and Claude are today what Google was in 2000 and
| should have evolved to.
| arjie wrote:
| I don't mind writing original content like the old web.
|
| And there's obviously other people who do this too
| https://github.com/kagisearch/smallweb/blob/main/smallweb.tx...
|
| I don't get much traffic but I don't mind. The thing that
| really made it for me is sites like this
| http://www.math.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/m-mat/AKECHI/index.htm...
|
| They just give you such an insight into another human being in
| this raw fashion you don't get through a persona built website.
|
| My own blog is very similar. Haphazard and unprofessional and
| perhaps one day slurped into an LLM or successor (I have no
| problem with this).
|
| Perhaps one day some other guy will read my blog like I read
| Makoto Matsumoto's. If they feel that connection across time
| then that will suffice! And if they don't, then the pleasure of
| writing will do.
|
| And if that works for me, it'll work for other people too.
| Previously finding them was hard because there was no one on
| the Internet. Now it's hard because everyone's on it. But it's
| still a search problem.
| sweca wrote:
| There will also be a lot of human + AI content I imagine.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| The rate limits though 15m tokens per month in the top tier isn't
| really scale
| refulgentis wrote:
| I strongly assume there are higher rate limits, more than once
| I've seen the Right Kind of Startup, (buzzworthy, ex-FAANG with
| $X00m in investment in a market that's always been free, think
| Arc browser), make a plea on twitter because they launched a
| feature for free, were getting rate limited, and wanted a
| contact at OpenAI to raise their limit.
|
| Arc is an excellent example because AFAIK it's still free, and
| I haven't heard a single complaint about throttling,
| availability, etc., and they've since gone on to treat it as a
| marketing tentpole instead of experiment.
| wewtyflakes wrote:
| I believe the rate limits are described in tokens per minute,
| not per month.
|
| https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/rate-limits?context=...
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Stuck culture? Meet REAL stuck culture.
| gpvos wrote:
| We're doomed.
| 93po wrote:
| websim looks cool but requires a google login to even try it, i
| hate the internet in 2024
| surfingdino wrote:
| So it will now be cost-effective to connect the exhaust of
| ChatGPT to its inlet and watch as the quality of output
| deteriorates over time while making money off ads. Whatever rocks
| your boat, I guess. How long before the answer to every prompt is
| "baaa baaa baaa"?
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Baa baa baaa baaaaaa.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| You're sadly misinformed if you think training an LLM consists
| of dumping the unfiltered sewage straight from the web into a
| training run. Sure, it's been done in early experiments but
| after you see the results you learn the value of data curation.
| surfingdino wrote:
| And who/what is going to curate data? AI or that company in
| Kenya https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
| ? Because neither have a clue what is good data and what is
| not.
| GaggiX wrote:
| It's clearly working because the models are only getting
| better, believing that the performance of these models
| would fall at some point in the future is just very
| delusional.
| muzani wrote:
| That article itself might be part of the degradation. It
| mentions at least four times that the contract was canceled
| as if it's something new. I wonder if someone just dumped a
| bunch of facts and ran it through a spin cycle a few times
| with AI to get a long form article they didn't expect
| anyone to read.
| aydyn wrote:
| I read that title _very_ wrong as injecting ads directly into
| ChatGPT responses. How hilariously dystopian would that be?
| levocardia wrote:
| I have some bad news for you - the nightmare is already here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40310228
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Microsoft Copilot already does this.
| mo_42 wrote:
| > Will the future of the internet be entirely dynamically
| generated AI blogs in response to user queries?
|
| I still enjoy commenting on HN and writing some thoughts on my
| blog. I'm pretty sure that there are many other people too.
|
| At some point everything that is not cryptographically singed by
| someone I know and trust needs to be considered AI generated.
|
| Maybe AI-generated content might have better quality than
| generated by humans. But then it's likely that I'm under the
| influence of some bigger corporation that just needs some
| eyeballs.
| 1024core wrote:
| I don't know who these people are who can't even do basic
| arithmetic.
|
| > an estimated annual revenue of $1,550 for 50,000 monthly page
| views.
|
| > This is approximately ~$0.00022 earned per page view.
|
| No, this is $0.002583 earned per page view, a ~12x difference.
| Looks like the author divided by 12 twice.
| GaggiX wrote:
| Well that's even better for the point of the article.
| latortuga wrote:
| Snarky but possibly true reply: perhaps someone had AI ~write~
| hallucinate this article for them.
| yard2010 wrote:
| The answer is clear - a hallucinating AI wrote this post
| GaggiX wrote:
| The post was probably written by a mere human (they do
| sometimes hallucinate quite badly).
| huevosabio wrote:
| This analysis implicitly holds supply constant. But supply isn't
| constant, it will balloon. So the price per impression will tank.
|
| So, on the margin, this will drive human created content out
| since it is now less profitable to do it by hand than it was
| before.
| zackmorris wrote:
| From what I can tell, all scalable automated work falls in value
| towards zero over time.
|
| For example, a person could write a shareware game over a few
| weeks or months, sell it for $10, buy advertising at a $0.25
| customer acquisition cost (CAC) and scale to make a healthy
| income in 1994. A person could drop ship commodities like music
| CDs and scale through advertising with a CAC of perhaps $2.50 and
| still make enough to survive in 2004. A person could sell airtime
| and make speaking appearances as an influencer with a CAC of $25
| and have a good chance of affording an apartment in 2014. A
| person can network and be part of inside deals and make a million
| dollars yearly by being already wealthy in a major metropolitan
| city with a CAC of $250 in 2024.
|
| The trend is that work gets harder and harder for the same pay,
| while scalable returns go mainly to people who already have
| money. AI will just hasten the endgame of late stage capitalism.
|
| Note that not all economic systems work this way. Isn't it odd
| how tech that should be simplifying our lives and decreasing the
| cost of living is just devaluing our labor to make things like
| rent more expensive?
| rachofsunshine wrote:
| It's only odd if you model economics as a cooperative venture
| between a society trying to build better collective outcomes,
| and not as a competitive system. Additional capability and
| information can never hurt a single actor taken in isolation.
| But added capability and information given to multiple actors
| in a competitive game can make them all worse off.
|
| As a simple example, imagine a Prisoner's Dilemma, except
| neither side knows defecting is an option (so in effect both
| players are playing a single-move game where "cooperate" is the
| only option). Landing on cooperate-cooperate in this case is
| easy (indeed, it's the only possible outcome). But as soon as
| you reveal the ability to defect to both players, the defect-
| defect equilibrium becomes available.
| oblio wrote:
| If you read the Black Swan by Taleb, it stops being weird. He
| points this out and dubs it Extremistan, where small advantages
| accrue to oversized returns.
|
| We will need humane solutions to this, because the non humane
| ones are starting to become visible (armed drone swarms driven
| by AI).
| zombiwoof wrote:
| Definitely the future of Twitter
| gnicholas wrote:
| Won't people who hate ads just choose to cut out the middleman
| and use 4o mini on their own?
| yard2010 wrote:
| What makes you think it won't have ads or "sponsored" content?
| K0balt wrote:
| The enshitification of search will drive queries directly to AI,
| either local or centralised. This will provide a before unknown
| nexus of opinion/ perception / idea control as the primary
| research tool will no longer return a spectrum of differing ideas
| and references, but rather a consolidated opinion formed by the
| AIs operators.
|
| This has really dystopian vibes, since it centralizes opinion and
| "factuality" in an authoritative but potentially extremely biased
| or even manipulatively deceptive manner.
|
| OTOH it will provide opportunities for competitive solutions to
| query answering.
| winddude wrote:
| Ad blockers, 30-40% of internet users. getting traffic... if it
| was that easy everyone would do it, and diminishing returns.
| Havoc wrote:
| Don't think you're getting 50k views pm in finance space with
| some "you're an expert blog writer" AI spiel
| mska wrote:
| When views are low the math doesn't make sense but it is very
| possible to get a lot of views through AI generated + human
| reviewed content.
|
| We're trying to do that with PulsePost (https://pulsepost.io) and
| the biggest challenge is unique content. Given a keyword or a
| niche topic, AI models tend to generate similar content within
| similar subjects. Changing the temperature helps to a degree but
| the biggest difference comes from adding internet access. Even
| with same prompt, if the model can access the internet, it can
| find unique ideas within the same topic and with human review it
| becomes a high value article.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-19 23:03 UTC)