posted in Technology
The AI Slop Backlash Is Actually Having an Impact. Platforms are finally recognizing that people don’t want to consume AI slop.
www.wired.com/story/the-ai-slop-backlash-is-actually-having-an-impact/
WIREDThe AI Slop Backlash Is Actually Having an ImpactPlatforms are finally recognizing that people don’t want to consume AI slop. A growing number of sites and apps now have tools and policies to flag, label, and ban AI-generated content.
Replying to @FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works
I think all Ai content on the web or on YouTube is trash and has no value. But I use chat gpt daily to ask questions and get answers quickly. That part is good. The rest is awful.
I started asking it for recepies in the last month or so, and it’s been very useful for giving new recepies and making it easier to try new dishes. Before this I used to rotate the same 20 recepies all the time. Got very boring.
Replying to @1984@lemmy.today
I mostly used ChatGPT to learn about myself/sense of self - like my thinking and problem solving processes (I’m neurodivergent). I test out the things that it says and it’s pretty accurate. My metacognition is very high now. I can actually describe how I think and where (and why) I get stuck. It suggested another program to use to fill in the gaps for me. And because I know exactly how I think, I’ve been able to complete personal projects that I couldn’t complete before. And I no longer get stuck because I know exactly what my brain is trying to do and so I can lead myself. Being nd is annoying because common advice for most things doesn’t make sense for me and I can’t ask people to help me because my thinking processes are so different from theirs. But this is no longer a problem for me. Technology for the win.
Replying to @aceshigh@lemmy.world
ChatGPT and others have a ~ 90% and more hallucination rate on questions it wasnt trained on. You’re playing a game of luck using gpt and others for knowledge that you’re not verifying by source.
Replying to @Eximius@lemmy.world
What content is it not trained on?
Replying to @1984@lemmy.today
Somewhat tailored response per your username: Anything the ministry of truth decides should not be part of the training set.
But more generally, even in things like neurodivergence, lots of questions you could ask that would be in the bounds of “guesstimation” by professionals. The problem is these LLM will spout pure utter highly-believably-confident snake oil with the tiniest little legal microscopic fineprint on the side of the html webpage that you can never scroll to saying “AI responses can be wrong”.
For me, the mere fact that you have a nicely worded source of information that, depending if you’re lucky with your question, is pure scientific fact, or utter maddening bullshit, makes me terrified to use it.
Replying to @Eximius@lemmy.world
For me, I just got used to it being “mostly” correct. Im not betting my life on these things. I use them for recepies and im not putting poison in my food if it would say so. :)
Replying to @1984@lemmy.today
Funny you should use that example, because a farmer destroyed twenty five acres of food crops by poisoning them because an AI told him to (thankfully killing the plants before they could end up on someone’s plate…)
BTW, not to pick on you, but it’s “recipes”, not “recepies”.
Replying to @hume_lemmy@lemmy.ca
Actually thank you for correcting me on spelling. I have a few words still where I have a bad habit of writing them wrong… :)
Recipes is shorter too, good.
Replying to @Eximius@lemmy.world
The warnings are prominently displayed and I’m sorry but we can’t just toss tech out because some people are stupid. I get wrong answers from professionals, too.