Ask HN: What will stop AI generated content from flooding the internet?
Recently got into a discussion with a friend about how AI generated content allows for the mass production of unique lengthy content that is being and will be used to disseminate misinformation and advertisements.
My question is what protections are in place to stop people from using a mix of SEO and AI generation to flood the internet and our search results with machine produced content promoting some agenda.
Basically, what protections/strategies are being used to avoid our search results from being dominated by non-human written text.
50 comments
[ 66.6 ms ] story [ 379 ms ] threadAnd/or... maybe a new industry of "Certified Human-made Content®" will pop up? :)
I probably go to verified identity. Thats going to upset a lot of people who want pseudonymous posting to be underpinned by substantive anonymity behind it.
I think in the case of ChatBPT and GPT, I want the AI to have "Hologram" H tattoo on their foreheads for some time yet.
Wow really? Whenever I search anything now half the sources I click have the same (verbatim) content, just different branding. And SEO optimization has gutted a ton of content and replaced it with trash.
> I increasingly believe my feedback on any forum is 50/50 with a troll seeking karma points
This is the last bastion of human speech left in the internet already and already we see HN posts they’re just GPT.
there are several protections and strategies in place to prevent AI-generated content from dominating search results and being used to spread misinformation and advertisements. These include content moderation, fact-checking, user feedback, and transparency.
I agree with this statement. There are indeed several protections and strategies in place to prevent AI-generated content from dominating search results and being used to spread misinformation and advertisements. These measures, such as content moderation, fact-checking, user feedback, and transparency, can help to ensure that search results are accurate and reliable, and that users are not exposed to misleading or harmful content.
However, it is also important to recognize that these protections and strategies are not foolproof and that there is still potential for AI-generated content to be used for nefarious purposes. It is therefore important for users to be aware of the potential risks associated with AI-generated content, and to use critical thinking and fact-checking to evaluate the information they encounter online. Additionally, it is crucial for companies and organizations to continue to invest in and improve these protections and strategies in order to mitigate the risks associated with AI-generated content.
The way around this is curation, and an end to monodimensional rankings of postings. In the future, I see the ability to add a number of ratings to a given post and the person who sent it, to allow communities to curate content, instead of a simple OK/Ban approach.
You know how YouTube puts "fighting disinfo" type stuff under some videos? Imagine if instead of some star-chamber buried in the bowels of a corporation, you could choose your own ratings/content verification providers.
Longer answer: there may be a period of some months still before models approaching the complexity of GPT3 are available at scale to truly black-hat actors like the worst of SEO firms. Training such a beast is still an expensive endeavor and so there is some gatekeeping yet.
For example: If I can ask an AI to make me a cake recipe, find an error in my code or tell me about the Hindenburg disaster, and the response is faster, more accurate and easier to read than what I’d typically find on Google, then maybe I simply won’t use Google for that anymore (especially since with the AI, I can ask follow-up questions...)
So maybe bad actors using AI to generate their content will just be yelling into the void. (Until their content gets picked up and incorporated by my AI in its next training session.)
Probably implemented by asking a model if the content is novel to the model ...
The tech allows for seamless integration of ads.
You can literally find lots of spammy AI sites in 5 minutes, search quality is worse than before after GPT-3 born.
These models are capable of generating high quality discussion on a variety of topics. I think the days of human-only text-based forums are numbered, especially as AI model trainers look for high-quality content to train their systems with.
We'll probably come up with a verification and id scheme. It'll be difficult not to make it spoofable of course, and will probably necessarily be rooted in physical f2f and secret information.
Honestly, what you should be more concerned with:
(1) All of us in these convos tend to assume that AI participation will be very widespread, but for that to happen, someone will need to foot the bill for running the compute. That means they will need to find a business model that will afford it, and those business models might be pretty terrible in the short term.
(2) If we head toward pervasive id verification in order to be able to trust, what do people do who require anonymity to evade harm by other humans? How can we open an avenue where we can we still have whistleblowers?
I think AI is going to enable spammers and scammers in ways that we haven't seen before. Once spammers can fully integrate these chatbots into their email systems, it's going to put pressure on email providers to find new ways to detect spam. Thinking in the purely cynical, nefarious case, scammers are going to make fortune robbing people with this stuff.
Maybe this is what will force us to acknowledge and address that using the internet for social interaction isn't scalable from a content moderation standpoint.
But they are probably including future improvements in their question about the future so I’m not sure why you think this is worth saying. I’m actually legitimately wondering if your comment is an output of ChatGPT.
[Cue the Spider-Man pointing meme]
This seems bizarre and futuristic, but in a way, it's actually just a return to pre-technological social norms, except with the benefit of broadcasting to a wider audience.
GPT is built on English which is international and I’d bet it has the most content to train on available.
Maybe at some point Chinese will be added but as far as I know Chinese isn’t as homogenized, and depending on fragmentation might net be viable either.
Being in the country were Siri isn’t yet available I don’t expect AI generators to be available anytime soon, if ever (due to different language complexity, not sure if that matters though).
I absolutely didn’t expect that because I’ve never seen it in the hyped up examples here and on twitter.
Of course your point still stands with smaller languages and/or markets.
Not that it’s difficult with other languages, just that it’s not the best example.
Obviously you would need a way to verify trustworthyness. Search might become a lot more curated and require people to think. Maybe Google will employ a million researchers and have to spend all it’s money defending search instead of all the other stuff.
Give a bunch of facts you will then have “write this story with these facts in a left-leaning irreverent but caring voice” etc. for various personas. Newspapers with opposing views might merge into one corporation!
It could be as simple as adding an HTML tag recognizable by both people and machines to any pages with such generated content.
I believe the answer will be some form of certified (maybe not officially) content creators. We'll need a Google alternative indexing only by whitelist instead of crawling the whole internet, and giving better ranking to articles and content produced by domain experts. "Who" wrote it will become a lot more important.
Product-placement (Edit: even elegant and subtle product placement) can be automated now.