Hacker News Reader

Comment by intended | Hacker News Reader

None? This is a fundamental change in the ecology, with the introduction of a new invasive species. Like with code, there is no going back, and no way to review everything that is written.

The unspoken assumptions that underpinned the web included the idea that it was made by humans and that content generation couldn’t be mechanized.

There are already YouTube ads for services that Humanize AI output.

The best analogy is that we are at the start of the Dark Forest era of the net.

I assume people will adapt, based on the things that don’t change. If you cannot make out authenticity of participants, then you index on correctness of argument. If the output is useful to you, then you got what you needed and can move on. A more transactional and less community oriented web.

View on HN

I mean I think with the wiki example.. it likely will be "Atra play the game and fix any information that isn't correct" or "read the game files and correct the inforamtion. That is assuming the person wants accurate information.

I think fundamentally you are right. People or AI will generate artifacts of value and a system will evlove to find that value. Partially because there will likely be a financial incentive to do so.

Yes.

We are no longer on a web that assumed humans first.

LLMs can shitpost like the best of us. I’ve had to point out content was AI generated so many times that its futility is apparent.

Consumers have more to consume.

A new category of producers can provide.

If the content produced is close enough to the real thing, is cheaper, then that’s enough to change consumption patterns.

You would need to identify some attribute of content that cannot be replicated at scale, for the old system to persist.

Currently the average output of an LLM matches the average output of an online conversation. It’s only when it’s pushed or put in front of an expert in a domain that its weaknesses are apparent.

Unless everyone becomes an expert, I’ll output is a good enough substitute.

> I mean I think with the wiki example.. it likely will be "Atra play the game and fix any information that isn't correct" or "read the game files and correct the inforamtion. That is assuming the person wants accurate information.

Except that Astra will happily lie to your face just like it lies in the wikis. It might even "fix" things that are perfectly correct. The problem here isn't that wikis have errors, the problem is that AI gives wrong information.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com