Hacker News Reader

Comment by socializer | Hacker News Reader

No. There's a problem with fully-AI writing that is independent of quality: you can produce a practically infinite supply of it at nearly zero cost. This means that if we don't push back, it's simply bound to crowd out human expression. You already see this on your social media feed, if you're paying attention.

I see inherent value in hearing from and talking to other humans. There is, unfortunately, a lot of AI content hustlers who want to rob me of this so that they can get more links to their website, more eyeballs on their product, etc.

The answer here isn't to demand that submarine marketers and SEO dudes prompt better so that the text is more pleasant to read. It's to cordon it off wholesale. And yeah, that sucks for some corner cases, but there's nothing else we can really do.

View on HN

An infinite supply of generative AI is bound to crowd out human expression. And consequently, human communication and culture. This applies to writing, visual arts, mathematics, software.. A horrifying prospect.

Human nature is to adapt and extend, sometimes extinguish. If there is an infinite supply of AI slop, we will stop seeing AI slop.

On your next highway trip, keep track of how many lawyer ads you really "see". My bet is that you see a whole lot of them but ultimately, only a handful of them stick because they are funny/clever/interesting in some way.

If "attention is all you need", then the lack of attention on AI slop will kill it far more efficiently than any amount of handwringing.

How does the crowding out work here? I'm not being pedantic, I'm genuinely curious about the dynamics as you see them.

My experience in the publishing world is that there is already an infinite supply of writing. Lots of things serve as filters, some for better and some for worse, but ultimately the quality of the writing (however we define that) vs. the field is part of that filter. There is a competition for our limited little attention spans and finite waking hours, and writing better suited to our tastes tends to win out.

I don't see how that dynamic changes with AI. If all writers have more or less equal access to AI, some writers will use it in ways that result in writing I enjoy more than others. Some won't use it at all and still write work I really like. The majority of people writing with or without AI, just as today, won't write stuff I really want to read.

I don't know if I've ever read a piece of SEO-driven content marketing and thought it was particularly profound or that it made an impact on me. Or that I really had an inherently meaningful connection to the author. I sort of don't care if people generate 100x more of that sort of thing. It makes Google searches less effective, I guess? Or it may make my For You Page on Instagram less human-rich?

I've read some nice poetry though. I usually go looking for it. There are a handful of authors I tend to like consistently. The overall volume of poetry published (it's quite a lot!) doesn't really have an effect on my preference for their work. If there was 1,000,000 times more poetry published because of AI, I don't think it would prevent me from seeking out new poems from writers/publishers/curators I like, nor would I probably really notice.

I agree, with respect to the status quo where AI writing is associated with lower quality.

In the long term, AI writing - mostly done solo, not directed by humans - will likely have higher quality than human writing, while being better suited to people's tastes since it can be personalized for every reader. If so, it's not hard to imagine it crowding out human writing.

You might ask, though, is that a bad thing? If it's legitimately higher quality, then what's wrong with consuming it? Well, I don't know. It certainly seems dangerous for everyone to be in their own little bubble of content. Social media of course tries to do that today, but there are limits. You can't pick any topic, any set of attitudes you want and get an infinite supply of content tailored exactly for you. Even if you find some super niche community to set up shop in, it's still a community; you're still exposed to the outside world at least a little. What happens when that changes?

I don't read to get personalized experience. I want to experience what other person has prepared for me.

If I open a online bookstore, I still presume these books were written by human and I can understand some piece of life experience of author.

But there will be filled by AI generated books in future.

Who's going to make you buy them or read them though?

Some by not knowing. Some by not caring.

Most of people can not find this without reading. And they occupied space of books from human.

> You already see this on your social media feed, if you're paying attention.

Regardless of the original provenance of the content on my feed, its presence on my feed has long been a result of ML algorithms designed to optimize engagement/outrage. For me, LLM content gave me the nudge I needed to finally quit the apps.

(Now what am I doing in HN...)

I think it's intentional. When AI produces more than we can read, we have to rely on AI to read it.

It's like a CO2 scrubber that runs on coal.

Did you watch every film produced this year? Or even 1% of them? Why would books be any different?

That isn't a problem with AI writing per se, at least not in the sense that it's a problem in a particular instance of a person encountering the writing. It's a problem with the existence and availability of the tools. I agree it is a problem, though, and it should be addressed by drastically curtailing the development and availability of the tools.

A little bit of subterfuge isn't bad here. Say you've just read about another goddamn "quietly" justified pushback, with enough other evidence that it's pretty clearly AI. What are your options?

Push back against the AI: IME, you get a lot of backpedaling, denials, unproductive arguments with people arguing that their slop is actually for your benefit, etc. They continue misbehaving.

Argue that the writing is objectively bad: You're still negatively critiquing somebody, so this has opposition from time to time, but people aren't emboldened by their use of AI, so they tend to respond much better and actually change a bit -- at a minimum, reflect on why they're being critiqued and try some better prompts, usually even better outcomes.

The "subterfuge" is just applying that latter strategy to all AI output. Whatever you're using to determine it's AI, recast that as an inherently negative property of the writing.

it's the same thing with rsearch papers right now as well. it seems to be the first time in history where one can produce "intellectual" content at a rate exponentially faster than one can read it or process it.

So who is it for if no humans are consuming those papers?

It's for the resumes of the people "writing" them

it's a relic from a now antiquated system (from a few months ago lol) where N papers was a meaningful metric.

Your last sentence reminded me of a quote by Alfred North Whitehead which I read many years ago in one of my CS textbooks: “Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.” I think about the essential idea of this statement quite often but didn’t remember the exact phrasing. As I went to look that up, I was thinking to myself something like “bet he would’ve changed his mind if he knew about LLMs!” but in finding the quote with its wider context, it appears he would’ve been thrilled:

“It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle — they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.”

Apparently, part of his philosophical thought was that the ultimate goal of mathematics is to reduce (maybe even eliminate) how much thinking we do. Not exactly what I thought he was going for all these years lol. I wouldn’t read much more into it but it’s not hard to see how the statement could be perceived as this renowned early 20th century mathematician, logician and philosopher implying that he would’ve have loved the idea of machines reducing the need for research and development in engineering and mathematics (even if only to allow researchers time to focus on more important things).

Edit: As I’m not familiar with the breadth of his works and know of them primarily through secondary sources, I can also see how what he said meaning that the purpose of mathematics is automation in a very general sense, so that humans can reduce the need to think about things other than survival and comfort, and being a mathematician, he likely saw mathematics, philosophy and knowledge in general as one of those “leisure” activities we should be thinking about instead.

> Apparently, part of his philosophical thought was that the ultimate goal of mathematics is to reduce (maybe even eliminate) how much thinking we do.

And it has done so. Imagine how much resources we would be spending on trials for any new object if not for the mathematical models of various systems and events that let us simulate timeline with pure logic. And with the invention of the computer, we’ve ridden ourselves of the human effort of manually computing them.

Pure maths and other theoretical sciences are useful because they brought us tools. Like discovering striking two rocks can produce a spark and thus allowing us to control fire. AI discoveries are more like seeing random thunder strikes and hoping some dry tree is now burning somewhere.

I think abstraction/generalization is definitely a hallmark of the human mind and it's what allowed humans to progress so quickly. It's basically a form of data compression. I think mathematics is one of the most direct examples of it.

Replying to correct my phrasing in the edit, meant to say “so that humans can reduce the need to think about things _like_ survival and comfort,” but ended up saying the exact opposite. The end kind of suggests the earlier part was a mistake though so hopefully it wasn’t misunderstood.

(I change my phrasing multiple times as I’m writing and sometimes leave earlier changes in without realizing and mistakes like these happen, quite a lot in fact. I blame it on ADHD and anxiety, both of which I was professionally diagnosed with at the age of 33.)

Technopoly more relevant than ever.

The thing you are pushing against...is not real. You will develop a paranoia for no useful reason.

Am I understanding you right, you're saying AI spam is not real?

No, I'm saying that _caring_ about whether a message is AI or not is going to degrade your health.

The same way children on facebook were bullied in their DMs, etc, was bad for their health.

Its fine people dont want a computer to generate messages, but AI isn't going to continue to generate obviously detectable messages forever. So if you say today "I'm going to avoid AI", you're either going to develop a fixed personality defect or delude yourself into accepting whatever.

Regardless of the case, if you're a disinterested intellectual, what matters more is if the content has any sort of validity. Not whether a computer was used somewhere in the process of generating the validity.

You see how keying in on "this is AI" vs "this is slop" is a fundamental difference in how someone will be emotionally involved in content, _on the internet_, the same way the rise of trolling sunk entire segments of the population into entering far right nationalism?

Anyway, in a couple of years, you'll either be a paranoid internet inhabitant or you will engage with ideas on their basis and only when the idea is backed by the worst people imaginable, is it going to be ok to say "you know what, broken clock here makes a good point, but he's still a stain on existence."

So you're worried that if they keep up the pushback in the exact same way forever it will eventually cause a problem? That's not a terrible point but it's a pretty minor one and depends on reading their post in a pretty specific way.

And even then, "not real" is completely wrong. Even if you can't detect the AI posts (in a hypothetical future!), they still exist.

No, I'm saying there won't be any tells to "push" against, driving them insane.

Go look up "gang stalking" and other paranoid delusions. AI fingerprints are going to disappear, but your adamant vehemence that it's detestable _because of it's existence_ will stay.

So that only leaves an increasing space of growing paranoia that uncritically lashes out at everything. Psychology is what will turn a healthy distrust of bullshit to a full on delusion about the things you view on the internet.

Your comparisons get increasingly insulting. Even if there are no signs, the AI use is still real. That's not at all comparable to gangstalking delusions.

And I don't know where you got the idea they they will continue to push against tells in particular after there are no tells. That's three big assumptions and if any one goes away your argument falls apart. If they eventually give up when the situation changes, there's no problem. If they fight with methods other than tells, there's no problem. If tells don't in fact disappear, there's no problem. You're interpreting their post in the most negative way possible when you make this argument.

Seriously, go back and read the original comment you reacted to. That comment didn't even mention tells. They just said they want to "push back" against "fully-AI writing".

yes, go back and read the response.

Its keying on the word "AI" as if that'll forever be something you can smell.

And you're taking that "as if" you see implied and wildly and inappropriately extrapolating from it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com