undefined | Better HN

0 pointspavel_lishin1y ago0 comments

> I hear this complaint often but in reality I have encountered fairly little content in my day to day that has felt fully AI generated?

How confident are you in this assessment?

> straight drivel

We're past the point where what AI generates is "straight drivel"; every minute, it's harder to distinguish AI output from actual output unless you're approaching expertise in the subject being written about.

> a team of copywriters who pumped out mountains the most inane keyword packed text designed for literally no one but Google to read.

And now a machine can generate the same amount of output in 30 seconds. Scale matters.

0 comments

PhunkyPhil1y ago

> every minute, it's harder to distinguish AI output from actual output unless you're approaching expertise in the subject being written about.

So, then what really is the problem with just including LLM-generated text in wordfreq?

If quirky word distributions will remain a "problem", then I'd bet that human distributions for those words will follow shortly after (people are very quick to change their speech based on their environment, it's why language can change so quickly).

Why not just own the fact that LLMs are going to be affecting our speech?

pavel_lishinOP1y ago

> So, then what really is the problem with just including LLM-generated text in wordfreq?

> Why not just own the fact that LLMs are going to be affecting our speech?

The problem is that we cannot tell what's a result of LLMs affecting our speech, and what's just the output of LLMs.

If LLMs result in a 10% increase of the word "gimple" online, which then results in a 1% increase of humans using the word "gimple" online, how do we measure that? Simply continuing to use the web to update wordfreq would show a 10% increase, which is incorrect.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse