Hacker News Reader

Comment by barbariangrunge | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

If you're not interested in random and creative acts of programming, I think you're on the wrong discussion site.

This is for fun. It takes todays headlines and rewrites them. Like I could tell that the "The Mars State Fair Sees Many Galactic Party Candidates but Only One Zorgon" was a rewrite of "The Iowa State Fair Sees Many Republican Party Candidates but Only One Trump".

It retells the present in a future context. I enjoyed it.

>> Who cares?

I care, and I appreciated this submission. I dont think the submission is meant to be a replacement for Literature or Science Fiction, I think it is meant to be a Proof of Concept and showcasing a technology hack.

Thanks - yeah just having some fun over here!

I agree. It seems like an obviously tongue in cheek submission rather than any kind of profit focused product. It even has a link to the open sourced version at the bottom.

A proof of what concept?

I wanted to try out building a website that auto-generates its own content. So I did that https://github.com/johnpolacek/notyetnews

Honestly, I struggle with this. I've made some 'AI' generated content, Multi-player text based rpgs with persistent generated content, stories, news articles, etc. I never released any of it- not because it isn't entertaining content, but because it feels shallow. It's almost like the idea of uncanny valley, but I'd describe it more as a hollow facsimile. I want to like it. I keep trying to like it, but I am not there yet.

The silver lining is that flooding the internet with AI spam is self-defeating since it will taint the training data for future models.

Instead of learning to immitate humans they'll begin to imitation the imitations, then imitate the imitations of the imitations.

Everything in archives pre-2021 is still untainted. All major social media, Q&A, code repos, and archive.org are timestamped. It taints future collection of training data, but not existing collection of training data.

What's the plan then, to coast on pre-2021 data forever? How much utility would todays LLMs have if they were trained on fossilized archives of the internet from 10, 15, 20 years ago?

Not like we haven't filled it already with misinformation and blog farm drivel. We need to judge both human and AI content by its utility.

I agree. The more attention we give AI, the more it will be profitable for sites to use it to gain advertising revenue, and the more money will be given to it's development. That is why I have adopted the policy to NEVER click on any video or link that celebrates the use of AI, or uses AI to get more clicks. Of course, websites or blogs that harshly criticize AI are good.

This is inevitable. There are people who scroll aimlessly 2-3-4 hours per day. They will continue.

There are people that are looking/checking out the source. I don't think that AI will be so prevalent (its owners) so as to fale things so well. I remember quoting to a friend how Lex Fridman uses "love" as a unit of measurement while Harari uses "suffering". I was trying to imagine how a dialogue between the two would play out, and BOOM it happened (and I thoroughly e joyed their dialogue - twice).

Now, should Spofity purchase their voice signatures and IP and "have a-la-Holodeck" generate weekly discussions between the two, JUST so they keep me renewing, it will make me think that "it cannot be that these two guys talk every week" and thus I will pull the plug on it.

Looping back to the "aimlessly" part, I CARE to check that the thing I consume is legit/authentic. Someone else though will consume the "new AI generated Sepultura album" or "see the new clothing collection worn/displayed for you by YOUR favorite celeb (e.g.) Taylor Swift/James Hetfield/Max Cavalera/et al". To each his own I say, and let them scroll till the end of time.

I would generally agree with you, except that "to each his own" generally is leading to a very unhealthy society and the destruction of the ecosystem as well through endless economic growth.

> The more attention we give AI, the more it will be profitable for sites to use it to gain advertising revenue, and the more money will be given to it's development.

Pretty obvious slippery slope fallacy.

Your conscientious abstaining doesn't fix anything in the big picture

Well maybe not, but I am slowly growing a group of people that are interested in avoiding technology, and maybe soon we can form a coalition, one which would promise to avoid using AI. Not sure it will work but maybe it could. And there is already some backlash against AI so it's not as hard as you think!

Cool

Reply on news.ycombinator.com