Studies have shown that only 3 to 5 iterations of AI out β> AI in content lead to litteraly bullshit content, with nonsense in every LLM "production". In other words, we are at maximum 4 iterations from content collapse.
I think the wide-open, globally-social parts of the internet are suffering a "tragedy of the commons". It's sort like one super-huge communal mailbox, getting stuffed to the brim with junkmail flyers, now that they're almost free to create with #AI . To avoid all this effectively "junk-mail"-like content, people will have to stick to the smaller groups and organizations to which they belong in real-life, being more regional, national, city-level, community-level, special interest, etc. They will get more closed-in and private (not unlike medieval castles with draw-bridges), and will involve more shibboleths to prove humanity (say, passkeys, minisign signatures, etc), in order to exclude #AI.
yes, and one day we are finally back at the good old days where we had/going to have directories of real websites with real content instead of search engines... π₯³
mmm, those numbers look very made up. An AI tells you what you want to hear. Where's the link to the paper? 48% of what content? On the Internet? Seems highly unlikely.
the number of completely credulous replies in this thread doesn't give me a lot of hope.
Folks. This is a screengrab of an X post, by an AI account, with no link, no names, no data, no citations. "Oxford researchers" would be disappointed in you.
AI tells you what you want to hear. Even if it's how awful AI is.
itβs not ironic. When ai companies post things like this, itβs to bait journalists and social media into sharing it and keeping their ai companies in the public eye, to keep people talking about them.
Itβs a deliberate and effective tactic for these companies to talk about the βdangers of aiβ or the βpossible collapse of the ai industryβ or some other existential crisis. Itβs effective because people fall for it over and over
The second law of thermodynamics illustrated. Everything turns to shit if not actively organized and fed. AI does not add intelligence, it just digests what is there. It also does not think, it just copies. We have not found the soul yet⦠which might be a good thing even.
I never _wanted_ all the articles written by humans for $10 - $100.
So... The slop wagon was already here for my purposes. The internet isn't a _magazine_. It's a _creative_ network and repository. I'm here for the folks who're sharing ideas. Not the folks who're _paid_ to generate 'content' or the folks who're generating 'content' to sell ads.
AI just _amplified_ this behavior because it's 'cheaper' for the 'content generator'.
Homogeneous, bland and boring content that wastes your time has been a ubiquitous reality for more than 10 years. Clickbait headlines were aimed at them. The problem has always been SEO and dependence on Google. AI made it easier the creation of such content.
I do wonder though: Just because more and more websites that no one will ever read are created, what does that kill? There's the problem of people being paid for writing - and they are in trouble for now. But then again: many of us still remember how to navigate a web without functional search engines. Blogrolls, mailing lists, networks, this strange place. There's many ways the net can and does work without mega corps. And even without #AI, specifically #LLM it was starting
In 2008, when I was studying, we were not allowed to reference Wikipedia directly, because it could give false information. Now Wikipedia is soon going to become one of the few beacons of truth on the Internet. As long as humans will still be able to differentiate between real facts and slop that is.
BIML coined the term "recursive pollution" for this in January 2024. We talked about negative feedback loops in ML in 2020. It's beginning to actually happen.
Ross did the math and published the model collapse paper in 2023. The math is discouraging.
I see this as demonstrating why chronological timelines maintained by humans and the fediverse are important. if AI floods search engines, then we want access to organically shared, human generated content.
is this what it's like to be but a cog in the machine? You can see the cliff it's hurtling you towards. However, you're powerless to stop it and its demand to keep turning on ever onward.
Well, it's also somewhat the people's fault. Maybe start avoiding anything which has the tag "AI" on it.
Pointing fingers is easy, doing something is something else.
I know you can't get the stuff back into Pandora's box, but we can try to limit its cancerous growth. At least i try to avoid AI whereever i can. I don't give a damn about business models and such. Companies did well before AI, people as well.
Maybe it's time to trade convenience for conscience.
Ivan Tsenov π§π¬ πΊπ¦
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •technikhil
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Stumpy The Mutt
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Jmvars
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •GrumpyDad πΊπ¦π΅πΈ
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Nico
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •@iveyline
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Tom
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •ECHAEA
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Arapalla
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •The money will work this out shortly and leave the building. The noise is growing everyday.
After the collapse anyone still running A.I. will be dumped.
Google and Meta are in for a rude awakening.
LAUREN
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Coq
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Em
in reply to Coq • • •Coq
in reply to Em • • •Find the white rabbit and follow the ones already in action π
@drwho @nixCraft
Droid Boy
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Light Owl βΈοΈ
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •To avoid all this effectively "junk-mail"-like content, people will have to stick to the smaller groups and organizations to which they belong in real-life, being more regional, national, city-level, community-level, special interest, etc. They will get more closed-in and private (not unlike medieval castles with draw-bridges), and will involve more shibboleths to prove humanity (say, passkeys, minisign signatures, etc), in order to exclude #AI.
Fahri Reza π
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •how much of this affect finance?
the market trend creates AI response which generates market trend that the AI will respond
Dizzy
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •James π¦ #FBPE πͺπΊ
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •stevE πΌ
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Dizzy
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Leigh Garland
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Leigh Garland
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •the number of completely credulous replies in this thread doesn't give me a lot of hope.
Folks. This is a screengrab of an X post, by an AI account, with no link, no names, no data, no citations. "Oxford researchers" would be disappointed in you.
AI tells you what you want to hear. Even if it's how awful AI is.
Leigh Garland
in reply to Leigh Garland • • •Not to mention it's a _sales pitch_, telling you how little an AI article actually costs to produce.
A lot of people left X to join Madison because of the fearmongering and hate. Don't let it permeate here.
nixCraft π§
in reply to Leigh Garland • • •Leigh Garland
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •yeah, and the actual article is a lot more bullish about prospects.
No 'Oxford researchers', but an AI powered SEO firm, based in US
Not 'all content' but % of _new_ content.
oh, and using an AI tool, on a dubious sample set.
I guess the takeaway from this is:
* Don't let the Fedi become like X
* Don't trust a guy with a Mushroom avatar.
DC LUG
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •DJGummikuh
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Talia Hussain
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Mudlark
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •itβs not ironic. When ai companies post things like this, itβs to bait journalists and social media into sharing it and keeping their ai companies in the public eye, to keep people talking about them.
Itβs a deliberate and effective tactic for these companies to talk about the βdangers of aiβ or the βpossible collapse of the ai industryβ or some other existential crisis. Itβs effective because people fall for it over and over
Henrik Pauli
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •"But the real crisis is model collapse"
Yes! Ha ha ha... yes!
Also deserves a microscopic violin.
xs4me2
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •The irony indeedβ¦
The second law of thermodynamics illustrated. Everything turns to shit if not actively organized and fed. AI does not add intelligence, it just digests what is there. It also does not think, it just copies. We have not found the soul yet⦠which might be a good thing even.
methuselah
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Audrey Winter has moved!
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •FandaSin
Unknown parent • • •@splinux
The sooner, the better.π€
@nixCraft
Matt Hall
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •I never _wanted_ all the articles written by humans for $10 - $100.
So... The slop wagon was already here for my purposes. The internet isn't a _magazine_. It's a _creative_ network and repository. I'm here for the folks who're sharing ideas. Not the folks who're _paid_ to generate 'content' or the folks who're generating 'content' to sell ads.
AI just _amplified_ this behavior because it's 'cheaper' for the 'content generator'.
I'm holding out for the art makers and thinkers.
Resolviendo la incΓ³gnita π
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Toni Aittoniemi
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Itβs almost as if there was nothing they could have done about this?
But AI is good, the rest of the world has to revolve around that whether they like it or not!
Becca π³ππ
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Dibs
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Christopher Masto
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Rodrigo Dias
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Tim Ward βπͺπΊπΆ #FBPE
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Adelina
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •noplasticshower
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •BIML coined the term "recursive pollution" for this in January 2024. We talked about negative feedback loops in ML in 2020. It's beginning to actually happen.
Ross did the math and published the model collapse paper in 2023. The math is discouraging.
berryvilleiml.com/2024/01/29/tβ¦
Two interesting reads on LLM security | BIML
Berryville Institute of Machine LearningRyek Darkener
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •hikewithrichard
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Amius
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •crawlyboi π³οΈββ§οΈ π³οΈβπ
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Brokar
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Well, it's also somewhat the people's fault. Maybe start avoiding anything which has the tag "AI" on it.
Pointing fingers is easy, doing something is something else.
I know you can't get the stuff back into Pandora's box, but we can try to limit its cancerous growth.
At least i try to avoid AI whereever i can. I don't give a damn about business models and such. Companies did well before AI, people as well.
Maybe it's time to trade convenience for conscience.
Caden
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •Michal Nemecek
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •phi1997
in reply to nixCraft π§ • • •