You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Should I link back an “AI” or LLM-authored splog? I vote no”.
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Should I link back an “AI” or LLM-authored splog? I vote no”.
I agree with you; I wouldn’t link back either. Just yesterday there was a hoax that spread throughout the internet about some kind of explosion near the Pentagon that turned out to be an AI-generated fake. I’ve been talking to Holly & a few others about my displeasure about what I felt was coming; it’s moving faster than I expected, but the last thing AI needs is our help and approval.
A friend posted about an animal recently and there are AI-generated images of it all over Google Images. All fake, since they look nothing like the real thing. You are right: humanity is not prepared, not by a long shot. We still haven’t deal with the tech we have.
As an update on this post though, Mitch, the creator of that website got in touch and the stories are human-curated. In fact, he saw this very post which alerted him that I was talking about him. To me that says there is some human agency and I’ve allowed it as an exception. In the past I have disallowed sites that copy or spin our content, but I have allowed those that excerpt just the first paragraph. Here they have rewritten the story and linked, which leans more to the latter “green-light” case for me.
But anything that falls into the former category and where I believe there is no human agency will wind up in spam.