Unless they can make a reasonably effective LLM-generated content detection (sounds tough!) they're faced with a rather inconvenient problem of mining the internet for known human-generated content (while we still agree what 'to know' even means).
Interesting parallels to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel.
Yes. For now. Just flag the use of the words "delve" and "deep dive," flag bullet-pointed paragraphs and lists, and flag anything that closes with a too-neat one-paragraph conclusion — and you've just caught 85% of AIspam.
But this is already changing, and in about 6-10 months I expect it'll be impossible to detect at more than 70% confidence whether an article is written by an AI or a human. (You could say: The human writes with soul, with style, whereas the AI is totally bland, irritatingly didactic, and generic. But you can quite easily coax an AI into imitating any literary style, and some of the best AI-generated content is warped in this way.)
Uhoh, is my copy pasta in danger of being snuffed out before anyone is served it?
Look, I get how some people would consider it spam. However, the problem still remains and the solution has not changed!
I have a life to live and can't spend every waking moment crafting a unique comment every time I need to reply to someone.
They had an algorithm that perfectly recommended content to you. Then they scrapped it and went back to star ratings. Why?
Netflix makes money from monthly subscriptions. They lose money when actually streaming content to users. So the ideal user from their standpoint is one who keeps paying but watches almost nothing.
Thus, the company is incentivized to put out just enough good stuff so you won't cancel, but they don't want you binging.
If Google sends users to pages and advertisers pay them, the incentive to address the content problem isn't there. In fact, LLM content may be another cash cow waiting in the wings.
The prize was a recruitment tool from the start, though. I don't think they ever intended to use any result.
Same is also true if you're implementing half of your moderation at client level.
For example, the RefinedWeb paper lists HN as one of only 12 websites that were excluded. From what I understand, it was excluded because it went into the final dataset unvetted. RefinedWeb was used for the Falcon model.