• @Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    37 months ago

    If we can work out which data conduits are patrolled more often by AI than by humans, we could intentionally flood those channels with AI content, and push Model Collapse along further. Get AI authors to not only vet for “true human content”, but also pay licensing fees for the use of that content. And then, hopefully, give the fuck up on their whole endeavor.

  • @mac@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    87 months ago

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

    • @General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -17 months 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.

    • @RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      217 months 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
        17 months 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?

        • @Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          27 months ago

          As always.

          The model isn’t dying, its the way these parasites want it to work that is dying.

  • @Mwa@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -2
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    remember how nfts feel off (due to how they lost their value) have a theory that ais will come to the same fate cause they cannot train (it according to the article?)

    • @jimmy90@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27 months ago

      or “we’ve hit a limit on what our new toy can do and here’s our excuse why it won’t get any better and AGI will never happen”

    • @Snowclone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      33
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It’s more ''we are so focused on stealing and eating content, we’re accidently eating the content we or other AI made, which is basically like incest for AI, and they’re all inbred to the point they don’t even know people have more than two thumb shaped fingers anymore."

    • @rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27 months ago

      All such news make me want to live to the time when our world is interesting again. Real AI research, something new instead of the Web we have, something new instead of the governments we have. It’s just that I’m scared of what’s between now and then. Parasites die hard.

  • @draughtcyclist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    237 months ago

    I’ve been assuming this was going to happen since it’s been haphazardly implemented across the web. Are people just now realizing it?

    • @DeathbringerThoctar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      387 months ago

      People are just now acknowledging it. Execs tend to have a disdain for the minutiae. They’re like kids that only want to do the exciting bits. As a result things get fucked because they don’t really understand what they’re doing. As Muskrat would say “move fast and break things.” It’s a terrible mindset.

    • FaceDeer
      link
      fedilink
      147 months ago

      No, researchers in the field knew about this potential problem ages ago. It’s easy enough to work around and prevent.

      People who are just on the lookout for the latest “aha, AI bad!” Headline, on the other hand, discover this every couple of months.

  • @erenkoylu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -77 months ago

    No it doesn’t.

    All this doomer stuff is contradicted by how fast the models are improving.

  • @SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    37 months ago

    Usually we get an AI winter, until somebody develops a model that can overcome that limitation of needing more and more data. In this case by having some basic understanding instead of just having a regurgitation engine for example. Of course that model runs into the limit of only having basic understanding, not advanced understanding and again there is an AI winter.

    • @Petter1@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 months ago

      Have you seen the newest model from OpenAI? They managed to get some logic into the system, so that it is now better at math and programming 😄 it is called “o1” and cones in 3 sizes where the largest is not released yet.

      The downside is, that generation of answers takes more time again.

  • @aggelalex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    347 months ago

    So AI:

    1. Scraped the entire internet without consent
    2. Trained on it
    3. Polluted it with AI generated rubbish
    4. Trained on that rubbish without consent
    5. Are now in need of lobotomy
  • NutWrench
    link
    fedilink
    English
    107 months ago

    Anyone who has made copies of videotapes knows what happens to the quality of each successive copy. You’re not making a “treasure trove.” You’re making trash.

  • @njordomir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    77 months ago

    It’s like a human centipede where only the first person is a human and everyone else is an AI. It’s all shit, but it gets a bit worse every step.

  • @pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    27
    edit-2
    7 months ago

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

  • BlackLaZoR
    link
    fedilink
    297 months ago

    So they made garbage AI content, without any filtering for errors, and they fed that garbage to the new model, that turned out to produce more garbage. Incredible discovery!

    • Pennomi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      77 months ago

      Yeah, in practice feeding AI its own outputs is totally fine as long as it’s only the outputs that are approved by users.

      • @WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 months ago

        I don’t know if thinking that training data isn’t going to be more and more poisoned by unsupervised training data from this point on counts as “in practice”

      • Bezier
        link
        fedilink
        English
        47 months ago

        I would expect some kind of small artifacting getting reinforced in the process, if the approved output images aren’t perfect.

        • Pennomi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          57 months ago

          Only up to the point where humans notice it. It’ll make AI images easier to detect, but still pretty for humans. Probably a win-win.

          • Bezier
            link
            fedilink
            English
            37 months ago

            Didn’t think of that, good point.

            The inbreeding could also affect larger decisions in sneaky ways, like how it wants to compose the image. It would be bad if the generator started to exaggerate and repeat some weird ai tropes.