Then the record from that point forward and forever hence will be one of AI, not one of humanity.
Future historians will likely place a great deal of emphasis on 2019 being the year in which we reached a forever-maximum of non-pandemic-tinged provably-human-created data. It's no reason to panic, and the mixed data sets will absolutely be representative of humanity's accomplishments as a whole... but there will be notable differences.
Is that any worse than unreliable humans? Whether they're intentionally lying or just mistaken, internet posts should always be taken with a grain of salt, for decades now.
Truth will become something similar to the roman emperors history, a million comments, blog articles condemning past rulers and CEOs as wrong all along, while praising the current instance, with similar spam in the forgotten archives.
A species ruled by madmen, one worser then the other. Praise be on the Bezos, who undid the mad world that reigned before.
Yes, I think so. Maybe not (but maybe) in terms of factual information, but in terms of opinion, analysis, arts, etc. You know, human things. The value of those things is, in my opinion, tightly couples with them being produced by humans.
And I have never stopped seeing my IRL friends in person. Those, I almost never talk with electronically.
This news sources are not just one blob or a black box. It's different people that are working for money. And we know reputable sources that have published fictionary stories as real over years(see Spiegel in Germany). Now it's really easy to unnotable use AI, so where is the reason why this will not happen?
the nyt just published a long interview with sydney in which she attempted to convince the author his wife didn't love him, which is ai-generated content; while that was clearly labeled, it will still appear in text data sets as ground truth
abundant background noise provides a lot of value for text data sets because it tells you how people talk