Re:Update to the “Samsung space zoom moon shots are fake”
by Ma8ee on Sunday March 12, 2023 @04:26PM
(#35125776)
It's not that hard to filter content by source. Reputable news sources and authors will not publish AI-generated content (without grave risks to their reputation). And most of the abundant background noise have never provided much value before either.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Update to the “Samsung space zoom moon shots are fake”
by krater23 on Sunday March 12, 2023 @05:03PM
(#35126260)
> Reputable news sources and authors will not publish AI-generated content...
This news sources are not just one blob or a black box. It's different people that are working for money. And we know reputable sources that have published fictionary stories as real over years(see Spiegel in Germany). Now it's really easy to unnotable use AI, so where is the reason why this will not happen?
Re:Update to the “Samsung space zoom moon shots are fake”
by kragen on Sunday March 12, 2023 @08:27PM
(#35128826)
cnet published a bunch of unlabeled ai-generated articles for months https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/20/23564311/cnet-pausing-ai-...
the nyt just published a long interview with sydney in which she attempted to convince the author his wife didn't love him, which is ai-generated content; while that was clearly labeled, it will still appear in text data sets as ground truth
abundant background noise provides a lot of value for text data sets because it tells you how people talk