Re:Research shows we can only accurately identify AI writers...
by asdff on Thursday March 23, 2023 @12:44AM
(#35270633)
Speaking of primary sources, if you ask the chatbot to reference some facts, it might very well make up plausable sounding sources. Maybe the reference doesn't exist at all. Maybe the reference exists but its by a different author. Maybe the reference exists and its the correct author, but the quote isn't found in the book at all, and to verify now you need to get ahold of the book in some form. It just seems like a chore, all to end up not entirely confident that what you have is true signal anyhow.
The problem is, there is value in: A) Generating content by bot B) Generating summaries by bot
It's just that the "lossiness" of each conversion step is going to be worrisome when it comes to the accuracy of information being transmitted. I suppose you can make the same argument when it's real humans in the chain.
However, my fear is that we get into this self-feedback loop of bot-written articles that are wrong in some non-obvious way being fed back into knowledge databases for AIs, which in turn are used to generate articles about the given topic, which in turn are used in summaries, etc.
I think traditionally referring back to primary sources was a way of avoiding this game of telephone, but I worry that even "primary sources" are going to start being AI-cowritten by default.