• Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Every single one of us, as kids, learned the concept of “garbage in, garbage out”; most likely in terms of diet and food intake.

    And yet every AI cultist makes the shocked pikachu face when they figure out that trying to improve your LLM by feeding it on data generated by literally the inferior LLM you’re trying to improve, is an exercise in diminishing returns and generational degradation in quality.

    Why has the world gotten both “more intelligent” and yet fundamentally more stupid at the same time? Serious question.

    • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Because the people with power funding this shit have pretty much zero overlap with the people making this tech. The investors saw a talking robot that aced school exams, could make images and videos and just assumed it meant we have artificial humans in the near future and like always, ruined another field by flooding it with money and corruption. These people only know the word “opportunity”, but don’t have the resources or willpower to research that “opportunity”.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    oh no are we gonna have to appreciate the art of human beings? ew. what if they want compensation‽

  • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    If mainstream blogs are writing about it, what would make someone think that AI companies haven’t thoroughly dissected the problem and are already working on filtering out AI fingerprints from the training data set? If they can make a sophisticated LLM, chances are they can find methods to XOR out generated content.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 hour ago

      What would make me think that they haven’t “thoroughly dissected” it yet is that I’m a skeptic, and since I’m a skeptic I don’t immediately and without evidence believe that every industry is capable of identifying, dissecting, and solving every problem with its products.

  • Rider@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Sooner or later it is supposed to happen, but I don’t think we are quite there…Yet.

  • levzzz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Fake news, just like that one time Nightshade “killed” stable diffusion (literally had no effect) Flux came out not long ago and it’s better than ever

  • mac@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    is it not relatively trivial to pre-vet content before they train it? at least with aigen text it should be.

    • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      The problem is these AI companies currently exist on the business model of not paying for information, and that generally includes not wanting to pay content curators.

      Google is probably the only one in a position to potentially outsource by making everyone solve a “does this hand look normal to you” CAPTCHA

      They can try and train AI to detect AI, but that’s also difficult.

      • FMT99@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        So it’s not a problem with AI. It’s just a problem for some mayfly companies that try to profit from the latest trend?

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It depends on what you are looking for. Identifying AI generated data is generally hard, though it can be done in specific cases. There is no mathematical difference between the 1s and 0s that encoded AI generated data and any other data. Which is why these model collapse ideas are just fantasy. There is nothing magical about any data that makes it “poisonous” to AI. The kernel of truth behind these ideas is not likely to matter in practice.

  • tee9000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Kind of like how true thoughts and opinions on complex topics are boiled down to digestible concepts for others to understand who then perpetuate those concepts without understanding them and the meaning degrades and we dont think anymore, just repeat stuff in social media comments.

    Side note… this article sucks and seems like it was ai generated. Repetitive and no author credit? Just says it was originally posted elsewhere.

    Generative AI isnt in danger of being killed as this clickbait titled suggests… just hindered.

      • tee9000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        48 minutes ago

        By chance, is that based on other peoples succinct social media comments on ai?

        • General_Effort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 minutes ago

          No. I simply don’t see a plausible scenario for that. The social media comments are quite deplorable. You really have to look for bubbles with educated people. I don’t know why this gets so much traction. Maybe it’s because the copyright industry likes it, or maybe it feeds some psychological need like Intelligent Design.

          • tee9000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 minutes ago

            Cant blame me for asking :)

            Seems like tools to recognize ai content to prevent synthetic input avoids model degredation.

            If those tools are up to the task then i would agree it probably doesnt hinder model training. Not sure what the reality is, or if the need for those tools creates a barrier to entry for a significant portion of those trying to create models with internet-crawled data.

    • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      No no. I think the LLMs. Or language models. Actually start to turn into mush “mentally” or how ever you phrase it.

  • emiellr@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Wait now hold on a minute. Why would I want to do this? Is this activism by people against LLMs in general or…? I’m confused as to why I would want to do this.

    • db2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      In case anyone doesn’t get what’s happening, imagine feeding an animal nothing but its own shit.

      • Stern@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I use the “Sistermother and me are gonna have a baby!” example personally, but I am a awful human so

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Not shit, but isn’t that what brought about mad cow disease? Farmers were feeding cattle brain matter that had infected prions. Idk if it was cows eating cow brains or other animals though.

        • _cnt0@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          21 hours ago

          It was the remains of fish which we ground into powder and fed to other fish and sheep, whose remains we ground into powder and fed to other sheep and cows, whose remains we ground to powder and fed to other cows.

  • rickdg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Old news? Seems to be a subject of several papers for some time now. Synthetic data has been used successfully already for very specific domains.

    • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Yup, old news and wrong news. Also so many people who hate AI but don’t understand how it works. Pretty disappointing for a technology community.