The AI dooooooom thread

[Valmy]

The Jurassic Park franchise does need a new direction...

Might as well throw in time travel.

Well that franchise has dinosaurs be all but bullet-proof so the Spanish on San Juan Hill would be shocked indeed...except they are now Minotaurs dressed as Matadors firing laser cannons.

[Tonitrus]

The Jurassic Park franchise does need a new direction...

Might as well throw in time travel.

Well that franchise has dinosaurs be all but bullet-proof so the Spanish on San Juan Hill would be shocked indeed...except they are now Minotaurs dressed as Matadors firing laser cannons.

Good thing Buckey O'Neill is piloting an Atlas battlemech in this version.

[Valmy]

Good thing Buckey O'Neill is piloting an Atlas battlemech in this version.

See we need to remember all these important prompts for once we get OpenAI

[Jacob]

INTERVIEW We know Google search results are being hammered by the proliferation of AI garbage, and the web giant's attempts to curb the growth of machine-generated drivel haven't helped all that much.

It's so bad that Jon Gillham, founder and CEO of AI content detection platform Originality.ai, told us Google is losing its war on all that spammy, scammy content in its search results. You can see our full interview with Jon about it all below.

"What's clear right now is that there's no one spamming Google [that's] not doing it with AI," Gillham told The Register. "Not all AI content is spam, but I think right now all spam is AI content."

Gillham's team has been producing monthly reports to track the degree to which AI-generated content is showing up in Google web search results. As of last month, about 10 percent of Google results point to AI content, it's claimed, and that's after Google vowed to take down a whole host of websites that were pushing such trash.

"Google did these manual actions to try and win a battle, but then seem to still be sort of struggling with their algorithm being overrun by AI content," Gillham told us.

As AI content proliferates, there's also concern that we could end up in a model collapse situation as AIs ingest other AI-generated material and end up regurgitating other low-grade synthetic data. Gillham said his AI content-recognition tech, which has been used to scan datasets for machine-generated infomation, can help, but it's not a total solution.

"It's a step in trying to reduce that corruption of the dataset, but I don't think it totally solves the problem," Gillham told us. You can hear more of what he had to say by clicking play above.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/13/google_ai_spam/

[Legbiter]

As AI content proliferates, there's also concern that we could end up in a model collapse situation as AIs ingest other AI-generated material and end up regurgitating other low-grade synthetic data.

Interesting. An AI inbreeding depression.

[Jacob]

Saw another article on a place where AI is making things crappier - Amazon self-publishing. It's always had a problem with content that was essentially (at best) wikipedia articles uploaded as books for suckers to buy. But now - according to the article - that market place is completely flooded with shoddy AI generated content. This shuts down a venue for aspiring and unrecognized authors to publish their work.

I guess more generally, AI is likely going to render non-curated or lightly curated places for content non-viable as the return on investment from flooding them with low effort derivative AI generated content is going to be significant enough that non-AI generated work will tend to be drowned out (or not submitted at all).

[Syt]

Yup. Some magazines closed their submissions because they were inundated by AI texts and couldn't keep up with the spam.

[Sheilbh]

Saw another article on a place where AI is making things crappier - Amazon self-publishing. It's always had a problem with content that was essentially (at best) wikipedia articles uploaded as books for suckers to buy. But now - according to the article - that market place is completely flooded with shoddy AI generated content. This shuts down a venue for aspiring and unrecognized authors to publish their work.

I guess more generally, AI is likely going to render non-curated or lightly curated places for content non-viable as the return on investment from flooding them with low effort derivative AI generated content is going to be significant enough that non-AI generated work will tend to be drowned out (or not submitted at all).

This is also the value of quality, current content as produced by publishing houses, news publishers, studios etc.

It could play a really important part if the companies developing these models paid for licenses rather than stealing it (and those media companies have now all been increasing measures to try and stop it from being scraped for models).

[DGuller]

Saw another article on a place where AI is making things crappier - Amazon self-publishing. It's always had a problem with content that was essentially (at best) wikipedia articles uploaded as books for suckers to buy. But now - according to the article - that market place is completely flooded with shoddy AI generated content. This shuts down a venue for aspiring and unrecognized authors to publish their work.

I guess more generally, AI is likely going to render non-curated or lightly curated places for content non-viable as the return on investment from flooding them with low effort derivative AI generated content is going to be significant enough that non-AI generated work will tend to be drowned out (or not submitted at all).

Looking on the bright side, maybe the return of curation is exactly what we need.  Social media with its lack of curation may have sounded great in theory, but it put democracy on the ropes.

[Josquius]

As AI content proliferates, there's also concern that we could end up in a model collapse situation as AIs ingest other AI-generated material and end up regurgitating other low-grade synthetic data.

Interesting. An AI inbreeding depression.

I hadn't thought of that but it does make sense.
Even just thinking of images. As all that AI generated shit starts to take over you'll be getting copies of copies of copies....
Though I do suppose the good copies will be the ones to be spread more so have the most influence?

[Admiral Yi]

Saw another article on a place where AI is making things crappier - Amazon self-publishing. It's always had a problem with content that was essentially (at best) wikipedia articles uploaded as books for suckers to buy. But now - according to the article - that market place is completely flooded with shoddy AI generated content. This shuts down a venue for aspiring and unrecognized authors to publish their work.

I guess more generally, AI is likely going to render non-curated or lightly curated places for content non-viable as the return on investment from flooding them with low effort derivative AI generated content is going to be significant enough that non-AI generated work will tend to be drowned out (or not submitted at all).

Isn't self publishing basically a money loser, not even counting writing time?  Why would AI people want to spend time generating content that loses money?

[Syt]

Saw another article on a place where AI is making things crappier - Amazon self-publishing. It's always had a problem with content that was essentially (at best) wikipedia articles uploaded as books for suckers to buy. But now - according to the article - that market place is completely flooded with shoddy AI generated content. This shuts down a venue for aspiring and unrecognized authors to publish their work.

I guess more generally, AI is likely going to render non-curated or lightly curated places for content non-viable as the return on investment from flooding them with low effort derivative AI generated content is going to be significant enough that non-AI generated work will tend to be drowned out (or not submitted at all).

Isn't self publishing basically a money loser, not even counting writing time?  Why would AI people want to spend time generating content that loses money?

Why is it a money loser? It depends on how much effort you put into it. With Amazon Self Publishing or Smashwords you can handle everything by yourself and upload your ebooks. In theory you can (more or less) just write whatever and then publish it. If you want to pay an editor, an artist for the cover art, or do pay for some social media ads, then it's obviously different. Not talking about physical self-publishing (or vanity publishers).

[Admiral Yi]

Why is it a money loser?

I assume insufficient sales to cover publishing.

[Jacob]

Saw another article on a place where AI is making things crappier - Amazon self-publishing. It's always had a problem with content that was essentially (at best) wikipedia articles uploaded as books for suckers to buy. But now - according to the article - that market place is completely flooded with shoddy AI generated content. This shuts down a venue for aspiring and unrecognized authors to publish their work.

I guess more generally, AI is likely going to render non-curated or lightly curated places for content non-viable as the return on investment from flooding them with low effort derivative AI generated content is going to be significant enough that non-AI generated work will tend to be drowned out (or not submitted at all).

Isn't self publishing basically a money loser, not even counting writing time?  Why would AI people want to spend time generating content that loses money?

They're already doing it, so it must make sense.

Presumably using AI prompts to generate 500 "books" on different topics, uploading them, and using botnets to push them to the top of search rankings is something that is relatively easy to automate.

At which point the money from suckers buying any of those "books" (that it costs pennies to generate) is pure profit.

[Jacob]

Why is it a money loser?

I assume insufficient sales to cover publishing.

This assumption is probably incorrect given the evidence - that such ai generated titles are massively prevalent.