this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
144 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37738 readers
361 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

archive.is link

Earlier this year, WIRED asked AI detection startup Pangram Labs to analyze Medium. It took a sampling of 274,466 recent posts over a six week period and estimated that over 47 percent were likely AI-generated. “This is a couple orders of magnitude more than what I see on the rest of the internet,” says Pangram CEO Max Spero. (The company’s analysis of one day of global news sites this summer found 7 percent as likely AI-generated.)

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vhstape@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 days ago

Human-generated slop has been flooding Medium since forever

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 39 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It was an SEO hellhole from the start, so this isn't surprising.

Do Forbes next!

[–] Firipu@startrek.website 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Is there a single good article on Forbes? It's always fucking clickbait without actual content.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

After all these years, I'm still a little confused about what Forbes is. It used to be a legitimate, even respected magazine. Now it's a blog site full of self-important randos who escaped from their cages on LinkedIn.

There's some sort of approval process, but it seems like its primary purpose is to inflate egos.

[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 8 points 3 weeks ago

As of 2019 the company published 100 articles each day produced by 3,000 outside contributors who were paid little or nothing.[52] This business model, in place since 2010,[53] "changed their reputation from being a respectable business publication to a content farm", according to Damon Kiesow, the Knight Chair in digital editing and producing at the University of Missouri School of Journalism.[52] Similarly, Harvard University's Nieman Lab deemed Forbes "a platform for scams, grift, and bad journalism" as of 2022.[49]

they realized that they could just become an SEO farm/content mill and churn out absurd numbers of articles while paying people table scraps or nothing at all, and they've never changed

[–] derbis@beehaw.org 37 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

How well does the "AI detection startup's" product work? This is a big unsolved problem but I'd be hecka skeptical.

[–] Excel@beehaw.org 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It doesn’t, and never will

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's because of bots like you. (I kid to make a point.)

[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 5 points 3 weeks ago

That's exactly what a bot would say, to stay undetected.

[–] Black616Angel@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That is why I liked the comparison with articles from 2018. Then you have comparable texts in the same format and can more easily figure out differences in your analysis.
If true, a jump from 3% to 40% is significant to say the least.

[–] juandesant@astrodon.social 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

@Black616Angel numbers in the article are 7% for the pre-2018 corpus, and 47% for the post-2018 corpus. That is from less than 1 in 10 to almost 1 in 2, or a coin toss…

[–] Black616Angel@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

In 2018, 3.4 percent were estimated as likely AI-generated.

For 2024, with a sampling of 473 articles published this year, it suspected that just over 40 percent were likely AI-generated.

My numbers were from the Originality AI part.

[–] juandesant@astrodon.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

@Black616Angel yes, I’ve realized that and corrected my post while you responded 😉

Maybe the blurb was AI-generated? 🤦🏻‍♂️

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's not so much that it's AI generated ... it's also AI influenced.

I know so many professional office workers who once wrote some of the most boring sometimes stupid emails because they didn't know how to write or get their message across or constantly miscommunicated things because they worded things wrong ..... now all of a sudden they've become professional writers and all their emails look like auto generated messages.

I'm guessing that many writers also take the AI shortcut. They get a bunch of content generated from an AI than just rewrite it for themselves. Some content i see is lazily edited and some is heavily. But I get the feeling that just about everyone is using it because it's an easy way to get a bunch of work done without having to think too much.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

At work? Yeah I'm gonna use AI to write that email. I didn't think or do anything more than the minimum required before, I'm not starting now. AI just makes it so that the same garbage I would sent before, now smells nice.

If you like writing as an art. Why would you have the machine do that for you? If you like thinking, you can do the thinking and let the machine do the typing for you.

All of these are different uses.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 5 points 3 weeks ago

Just do the minimum.
No one wants to read a 10 paragraph AI generated treatise.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

The implication that rewriting GPT output makes one a professional writer ... not sure we're on the same page there. If you know how to use it for those results, great!

[–] haroldstork@lemm.ee 16 points 3 weeks ago

Omg the amount of times I've clicked on a Medium article in the last month and immediately knew it was AI is so frustrating!!!! They aren't even helpful articles because you can tell there is no real understanding.

[–] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The best part about this, is that new models will be trained on the garbage from old models and eventually LLMs will just collapse into garbage factories. We'll need filter mechanisms, just like in a Neal Stephenson book.

[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

People learn and write program code with the help of AI. Let this sink in for a moment.

[–] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm in university and I'm hearing this more and more. I keep trying to guide folks away from it, but I also understand the appeal because an LLM can analyze the code in seconds and there's no judgements made.

It's not a good tool to rely on, but I'm hearing more and more people rely on it as I progress.

[–] drwho@beehaw.org 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The true final exam would be writing code on an airgapped system.

[–] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago

I'm going into my midterm in 30 minutes where we will be desicrating the corpses of trees.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Shitty tech opinions were flooding Medium before, so it's not much of a difference.

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

I think the difference is scale. Before it was x% of humanity making shitting opinions where x < 100. Now it's x% of humanity+AI, where x is, say, 100,000% of humanity. I don't think we're currently equipped to separate the wheat from that much chaff.

[–] SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I knew it would be the first platform to go. The same goes for substack, thats next.

[–] RickRussell_CA@beehaw.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

Perhaps, but I don't read anything on Substack unless I'm subscribed. Reputation is the entire point on Substack, without it, the content will get no traffic.

[–] storksforlegs@beehaw.org 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

the first person who develops a browser that effectively filters out AI results is going to do very well

[–] Corgana@startrek.website 2 points 3 weeks ago

This could easily be done with AI. For a week or so, that is.

I just had one of these! Literally each image was AI generated and everything real like it was from openai. It was a Google search for something like "kubernetes custom deployment rules" and it was a result that was like "kubelat.medium.com" or something. They just take the most asked questions and generate entire articles about them.

I just went to the source and asked chatGpt directly. I got a better answer anyway