Examples of AI rip-offs making their way into Google News
404media.co
404media.co
I haven't seen, nor witnessed anything that you can benefit from all this AI hype. All that has done is opening the door for polluting the web with crap. And we keep on and on with the madness of training, wasting money (and resources) on gpus, generating tb of data. For what? To generate text, images?
If someone can actually point out a real example on the real world how all this madness helps to a better world, much appreciated, because honestly I don't see it.
US employees spend 18 hours / week in meetings so that is a noticeable improvement IMHO.
And as always not sure our "closed-source", "employee only" code would be useful to anyone not working with us :/
Using RAG on a set of docs for a project it's possible to get good answers to specific questions (and ask follow ups, etc) - really speeds up understanding, like having someone who knows their stuff answering questions for you all the time.
Making meeting notes, summarizing discussions - frees the note taker and produces a nice record of what happened.
Person A: ChatGPT, expand these bullet points into a ten page presentation.
(sends to person B)
Person B: ChatGPT, scan this ten page presentation and give me the main points.
Having AI (or, indeed, a human colleague) do it for me is a bit pointless, as it eliminates 90% of the value.
But part of me believes this is another “self-driving car” thing where in 10 years we’ll still be in exact same place.
Today I saw an interview from a Greek YT economist who was asked about BTC. His answer was “it’s been 10+ years that has bene around. We know by now that is not new or groundbreaking in any substantial way” and I agree. There are many tech that “if this and that” but we never seem to reach “that” point.
It's the same for "AI", it's happening in cycle since the 60s, nobody learns a damn thing, it's borderline a pump and dump scheme at that point
I wouldn't even be surprised if personal cars are banned entirely before we reach self driving cars
I want us to be still having these discussions in 2034, because that would mean I'm still capable of gainful employment for the next ten years.
But a mere 3 years ago, what ChatGPT is doing now — even with the mistakes — was SciFi level of natural language processing.
They also use it to learn about people and places, a bit like using Wikipedia, which they never used.
Regarding non-dev uses, I use it to simplify and "neutralize" a text I'm writing to others, like getting a second opinion on the text. For example for the homeowners association.
For example now I passed `What does this mean? "Regarding non-dev uses, I use it to simplify and "neutralize" a text I'm writing to others, like getting a second opinion on the text. For example for the homeowners association."` and read the answer to see if it coveys my message properly. The answer was helpful: "[...] This could be particularly useful in ensuring that the message is clear, diplomatic, and devoid of unintended connotations, which is important in formal or communal communications like those in a homeowners association context."
I would never look them in the eyes again if I found out someone did this to me.
Which makes those expressions have about as much value as the ones in greeting cards: almost none.
US government killbots will bring peace in our time!
It's just taking a little longer than we had hoped to perfect the "friend or foe" module
Regardless I have learnt things and taken on projects I never would have attempted without it.
> Regardless I have learnt things
who cares what we learn is true as long as we learnt something?
and there are consequences if you're caught teaching rubbish
not to say they are perfect, but there is some level of quality control
meanwhile ChatGPT just bullshits endlessly with no possible way to punish OpenAI for it
> meanwhile ChatGPT just bullshits endlessly with no possible way to punish OpenAI for it
Sure there are, and more importantly there's also ways to "punish" the models themselves — that's what the "thumbs down" and "regenerate response" buttons in the chat UI are for.
Human teachers can be audited without advanced knowledge in maths, computer science, and information theory to discover what went wrong.
Human teachers can be held accountable.
A Human teacher has limited scale thus limited damage over bad information with more safeguards than "Big Corp promises not to be bad"
A human teacher can realize their own mistakes.
Human teachers have complex incentive structures that can modify their behavior.
Many humans (even ones with technical training) tend to see computers as infailible in first principals of math and carry that forward to deep learning which is where the math becomes tough to audit, couple that with LLMs affinity for overcoming the uncanny valley enough to seem like a rational human actor because of the datasets being used and you have "magic". This is before you even add financial incentive.
Not saying these issues in deep learning can't be tackled but the disengenous hype-train and the downvoting because people point out flaws with the new internet ATM is wearing thin.
There's a reason GPT-4 scores so highly on advanced exams like the USMLE.
yes, it's called overfitting
The problem is Goodhart's. Tests aren't used to measure your ability to overfit them, but to measure your general knowledge. Obviously the latter is exceptionally difficult to measure so we settle for an easier metric. The problem comes from believing that the measurement well aligns with the thing we set out to measure. The same is for humans as is for machines and it is why it is insane to say something like "look, GPT did well on the BAR exam, it should be able to practice law." Because we explicitly do not want a legal system that follows the letter of the law (rather spirit of the law) and it's clear which one GPT would do. Yes, there's a problem that humans go this way too, but it's something we can solve if we are willing to admit the fuzziness of our metrics.
How do you know? If you're using it as a tutor you're using it to get knowledge that you don't know. Sure, it doesn't get things that are obviously (to you) wrong, but what about subtle things? At the graduate level subtly dominates and many concepts are counter intuitive or non-obvious in the first place (otherwise they wouldn't be expert knowledge).
Gpt helps me connect dots and uncover useful details I didn't previously have, and that official explanations didn't include. And just about every time I've double-checked, it's right, even when it didn't make sense to me (counter-intuitive/non-obvious due to my mistakes in reading comprehension or previously erroneous concepts in my mind).
I have no issues with anyone using GPT as a __noisy__ tutor. But we just must be clear it is easy to get fooled, difficult to validate, and easy to cause GPT to change its answer. There's a high rate of people using it as a non-noisy tutor, so we can't be implicit.
FWIW, I use GPT in a very similar way, and frequently. Especially with the decline of Google and especially for high level topics. It functions very well as a fuzzy search and often even when wrong (which is frequent for me when asking high level math questions, think post PDEs) there's still words or phrases that help me significantly narrow down a Google search.
Which any Google Search engineer should not be reading this as "replace Google Search with GPT/Bard"!!!!! They work in tandem!!! I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH and do not want to see the hell that that creates.
Sure, no system is perfect, but not all imperfections are equal, and I'm tired of pretending like they are.
I think this is the actual issue, rather than the other specifics you raise — my anecdote of human mistakes includes having a 44kHz/16-bit audio recording of a whole university lecture where the lecturer insisted that nobody can record mocap joint positions for a mere dozen joints at a mere 24Hz/8-bit for more than a few minutes because that is too much data to store, and it was their confidence that kept them from updating.
But, back to the point.
Every instance of any specific AI release (GPT or LLM or whatever else) are identical; errors are therefore necessarily correlated. Humans get an advantage from our imperfections being un-equal, we benefit from the wisdom of the crowd (with conditions) and second opinions are meaningfully independent (again with conditions), but not so for any specific AI.
(Possible twist: Mixture of Experts).
Professors and chatbots are both wrong all the time and its up to the student to extract useful knowledge.
My major concern when using GPT and especially with hearing how common it is for people to use it as a tutor, is that being a novice you explicitly want a confidently correct tutor. There are certainly good aspects of GPT but you're here to gain knowledge. Being a novice explicitly means you are going to have difficulties recognizing incorrect information so you put yourself in a concerning position of becoming confidently incorrect.
For example, ChatGPT has already brought huge benefits to all the non-native speakers who work for/with companies in English speaking countries. Does it count as "making world better"? Or it makes lives of white-collar workers in these countries worse, since it brought more competition in?
All I'm saying is that with thing like AI its entirely dishonest to say its making the world better with a straight face. It is what it is. Don't fool yourself by thinking you're doing it for 'the greater good'.
Early research shows that AI is able to detect cancer 4 years earlier than a doctor traditionally would.
So let’s bring it back to generative systems. IBM Watson was a complete failure, generating nonsensical diagnoses and treatments. https://slate.com/technology/2022/01/ibm-watson-health-failu...
> I haven't seen, nor witnessed anything that you can benefit from all this AI hype. All that has done is opening the door for polluting the web with crap. And we keep on and on with the madness of training, wasting money (and resources) on gpus, generating tb of data. For what? To generate text, images?
> If someone can actually point out a real example on the real world how all this madness helps to a better world, much appreciated, because honestly I don't see it.
The comment I was replying to did not say LLM or Generative AI. It didn’t specify LLM and simply asked for examples where AI is making good.
Instead of saying, “is there a source?”, or taking 2 seconds to Google “4 year cancer detection with AI” people are lighting up the comments about failed AI from IBM from ten years ago.
Here is the source:
https://www.unilad.com/technology/ai-detected-breast-cancer-...
Also re Watson. Top Google article for the search terms “Watson medical ai” leads to this article, which contains the best response to your criticism:
> I don’t think that the failure of Watson means that artificial intelligence isn’t ready to make significant improvements and changes in health care. I think it means the way that they approached it is a cautionary tale that lays out how not to do it.
https://slate.com/technology/2022/01/ibm-watson-health-failu...
Whether LLMs deserve all this hype is debatable, but whether there is merit in AI technologies being used today is not. There are some pretty good use cases in medical, pharma and biotech, agricultural, etc. Few of them are based on LLMs but that wasn’t what the commented was actually asking. They were asking if “the AI hype” had any real applications, and it does.
LLMs are just the manifestation of the Gartner hype cycle anyways. And we haven’t gotten anywhere near the terminus for them either, with almost every vendor and open source project planning to at least double model size in the next year as hardware and GPU capabilities expand. I think we have yet to see what LLMs can really do and will be much more pleased with them in 2-3 years as they mature.
https://digialps.com/the-first-ai-medical-device-that-can-de...
That’s like pointing to GM’s 1990s electric car while explaining that electric cars haven’t delivered.
Which "AI" ?
Which "cancer" ?
What's the false positive/negative rate ?
Regardless of all that, if it detected it 4 years earlier it means it happened at least 4 years ago and have nothing to do with the LLM hype gp's criticising.
> proceeds to give absolutely no example nor source
Yeah sure.
Here’s a link:
https://www.unilad.com/technology/ai-detected-breast-cancer-...
AI translators are opening up the whole world to communication. I can talk to and do business with people even if we speak no common language. I can parse information from any language now.
Incredible that you hackers are down voting this, I answered his question exactly. AI translators are very useful tools for international business and communication. Some languages were impossible for machine translating up until a few years ago. This has a real impact on the world for non-tech people. It's not a toy.
Are we absolutely sure about that?
One small thing: Amazon.com appears to be using an LLM to provide a summary of all of a product's reviews. But aside from that, I haven't seen anything useful out of "AI" yet.
Anecdote time.
My sister, who doesn't care much about computers, found ChatGPT useful in her job, as it gave her a template to build from that included things she'd not thought of initially. I've just listened to the latest Numberphile podcast, and was surprised to hear Donald Knuth saying similar about a handful of the responses it gave him when he was playing with it.
I play around with the GPT models regularly, even before ChatGPT came out, and it broadens my abilities by producing code in languages I don't have much professional experience with, but which I can verify.
I sometimes use it for translations, and have occasionally tried using it as a foreign language conversation partner (it's OK at that, one limitation is that it keeps going back to English, though this is also a problem I face in real life with actual humans).
Seems funny, have a bot from acme inc, give it a list of job descriptions, assign a budget. acme then figures out how to extract as much money as possible.
In the end, humanoid robots running the company, doing meetings and interviews all over the world simultaneously.
Walking around the factory, hey Jim, how is the wife? Oh, things are slow today, I'm going to give you the rest of the day off. Not real empathy but simply the most profitable manipulation.
There is a project that tracks/curates "AI" in the context of bad use or real world (mis-)application [1].
Just like NFTs only bigger. Just like 80’s era diet pills. Or 90’s era whatevers.
It’s a facet of capitalism to drive consumption and move to profit as quickly as possible. I think we are still in the “gauge and gamble” phase, but eventually in a season or to we will see it hit and bilk the general public.
We all know “AI” has been a “thing” since ML or Soundex or PID loops, or small models, etc.
It’s just “finally” hit a downhill allowing some momentum to build.
I mean, you can always just not rely on the internet for news and narratives and such.
And yes it is possible. It is possible to work in this economy, raise a family, eat well, and not need to be bombarded by fake anything, whether generative AI or human authored.
I think the atomic bomb is more credible as a seed of human destruction.
By the way does anyone know anything about any launch codes?
Also - have you seen the whereabouts of John Connor?
That commenter went on to list examples where one’s personal usage of the Internet would irrelevant to one’s wellbeing. It won’t affect one’s level of care received from doctors or one’s safety when crossing a bridge.
it's not me I worry about
it's all the facebook users, who can also vote
Nuclear weapons absolutely are an existential risk.
>By the way does anyone know anything about any launch codes?
I don't have any top secret knowledge about current systems but have read about historical command and control systems and it's a terrifying slice of history. Now there is starting to be talk about integrating AI into those systems, which I find horrifying.
Ok, but what do I do about the other 159,690,456 people that vote in this country?
It's not over, unless Google doesn't care enough about Google News to fix it.
We can deplore it, but must not delude ourselves into thinking that the old web didn't have a nonsense problem. You had sites that would go unlinked because the creators were crazy. At first the thing that curbed influx of nonsense somewhat is barriers to entry such as cost and technical competence. Then the curation was reputation based with Google's pagerank as an example.
Now we will find new ways. And it hurts. It hurts like spam hurts email.
Of course the problem lies exactly in the ability to automate incompetence.
I choose to be naively optimistic: the glut of reasonable-sounding bullshit will increase the practice of citing sources when making claims. Then we can go back to good-old-fashioned lying with statistics.
This isn't hypothetical. We already have bullshit citations and bullshit articles today. The only thing remaining is to stick the two together.
I for one am somewhat glad we are going to be forced out of our shell when it comes to the nature of truth in media. All it means is that people are going to have to have a higher standard for what they believe. Many wont, just as many today think infowars or Joe Rogan are telling them the truth, but we shouldnt cater our society to the lowest common denominator. Instead we should create a society where the more informed people can do their best to guide and educate the people more easily fooled to develop the skills to be more discriminating in what they believe.
A large enough change in degree becomes a qualitative change.
If what once required nation states budget is suddenly free and in your pocket, it’s potentially a tectonic shift.
Fooling the easily fooled accounts for most social media and ad traffic already. So now they get more fooled or fooled more often? I think thats not good but also not catastrophic in the way that is being implied.
That works for you, but for everyone else who is less diligent in source evaluation, this now gets worse. Don't you agree that society suffers when a large proportion of people now get their information from fake sources?
People should strive to be more critical, if that includes evaluating the source of whatever they listen to then I think thats great. This is something we should be doing anyway.
I can be as critical as I want, if the people around me who vote, have influence on my environment, etc end up in misinformation, it has a huge impact on my life.
Advocating for critical and thoughtful consumption of media will become more important with the rise of AI and it will also lift up society as a whole. If society really takes this seriously we could make real progress and help many people who are currently vulnerable to misinformation become less so.
Honestly this an absurd take, and I like AI…
I personally have seen two or three cases of myself or someone I know getting duped by fake info, about meaningless trivia, but just the result of a quick google like "is so and so dead" or "did so and so break up" and got wrong info, because I don't care enough to do the deep dive to invalidate it.
This kind of argument rubs me the wrong way. It's like saying a printing press is just a faster scriptorium, or a nuclear bomb is just a change in degree from a hand grenade. It's misleading because it ignores the monumental difference in society these later inventions brought about, which were not caused by the previous inventions, and never would have been. It ends up being an argument to not engage with the reality of the situation.
The more complicated reality is that things qualitatively change at scale. We need to have honest sober discussions about the trade-offs and unknowns involved, instead of just YOLOing blindly into moving fast and breaking things.
With these image generation models, the only things filtered by human involvement are the creation of the prompt, and whether or not they believe any generated image is believable. The required time and effort is minimal, and on top of that you can generate hundreds by the time a single person can make a convincing Photoshop edit.
---
In terms of being able to sift through generated images across the wider internet, I've no idea what can be done. But I feel a potential defence against them would be for news sources to publish the exact images they were sent online, keeping the original resolution, removing cropping, and retaining Exif data.
Not to get too political, but covid and the 2020 US presidential election showed how bad we are at handling untrustworthy information.
Just like between a fork and a nuke, not sure it's a very solid argument
But not in an automated way, that is difficult to detect, and that could impact every facet of your life. Like, yeah, photoshop was a thing, but now AI filters can "nudify" virtually any picture, quickly, and in an automated way. Ditto for generating ads, political propaganda, etc.
Most media has been coercive throughout my lifetime through the capture of distribution channels. If you control the distribution of where people consume their content, you can sway public opinion/sentiment.
For example, you might set a "narrative target" for your news outlet to report "Tech = Bad" this quarter.
Or you might purge all rural content from your network, like in the Rural Purge.
The internet has blown that wide open. Many people, especially younger demographics, are curating their own content now. Instead of "news networks," many of my younger friends talk about individual citizen journalists. Those journalists go by many names, vloggers, podcasters, youtubers, etc.
I've noticed that, in the past few years, the people proclaiming the loudest that "Journalism is Dead!" are doing so because they've ignored where the craft of journalism has migrated to: the internet. They look at the hollow dying husks of organizations that were built around capturing distribution channels, husks that have burned their credibility over years of blatantly coercive reporting, and somehow feel nostalgia for those husks.
The legacy distribution channels have, by-in-large, lost. The only metrics they appear to be relevant in are the ones that conveniently exclude the distribution channel they've lost to: the internet.
With the rise of OSS AI, I'm _extremely_ bullish on personalized moderation and curation.
In the next few years, I want a personal AI that automatically mines all of my social media feeds, email, text messages, calendars, subscribed channels, podcasts, etc. and gives me a personalized curated view.
I want that AI to be highly-biased, and highly-aligned. But the measure of bias and alignment is _me_. I want it to have my bias. I want it to have my alignment. I want it to be fine-tuned on me. And I want it to go churn through a lifetime of content daily and bubble up the most valuable/meaningful content for me.
I think we are moving into a period where the ability for people to be coercive by controlling media distribution channels is coming to an end. The rise of personalized AI will kill it.
And this is before I get into generative AI disrupting the larger entertainment industry for the better!
Locally, on my devices. Where property law says I own the fine-tuned model and the device.
> And who exactly will create the content?
Anyone and everyone? I don't understand what you mean. What you just posted here is content. You produced content. I assume you will continue doing that moving into the future.
> Your personal AI will just consume a shitload of content that the powers with most compute generates
I think that assumes a random walk through the internet? Content discovery probably shouldn't be random?
As your AI curates content, you give it ongoing feedback about the quality of the content it gives you, (feedback based on your highly biased definition of "good" and "bad" content). Your AI learns what is "good" to show you and what is "bad" to show you.
As your AI finds "identities" and "content channels" that produce reliably high-quality content that your highly-biased and highly-aligned AI can curate for you, I'd imagine your AI would prioritize searching those content spaces for quality content first.
For example, I'd like to think my personalized AI would learn to surface up interesting conversations and content from Hacker News.
As content channels get "overrun" by noise, the AI is filtering out the noise, the signal-to-noise ratio drops, and the AI slowly lowers the priority of those content channels in favor of channels that consistently produce content you find valuable to consume.
The key here is that the AI is ultimately accountable to me, overseen by me, controlled by me, fine-tuned on signals generated by me, etc.
Imagine you had an army of 1 million personal executive assistants who could scour the world looking for information relevant to you, and give you a curated feed of useful information on an ongoing basis. That sounds like a pretty cool future to me.
And if someone wants to spend their time squandering their wealth to accumulate enough hardware to run 1 trillion personal executive assistants to generate a bunch of valueless (or value-negative), coercive, uninteresting dribble on the internet? Cool. Let them squander their wealth. My executive assistants will filter that out for me.
Personally, I want to be challenged regularly. I want AI's that are biased based on the direction I need to be challenged in the moment, which I would mark as "good." I want an AI that can challenge my assumptions as I work by surfacing relevant research papers that show I might be following the wrong path, which I would mark as "good."
I want AIs that can adopt the personas of someone I'm reading that I disagree with, who has long been dead, so we can have a conversation over beers and sort out some of my personal philosophy.
And I want all of that on my terms.
To ground this desire in classical terms, I want to pick the books I read. I have a bookshelf full of books. I have books I agree with. I have books I disagree with. But I only have books that make me think. Being able to pick my own books doesn't mean I want to live in an echo chamber. It means I want to cultivate my own personal philosophy on my terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...
> Thomas Tymoczko has pointed out that there is nothing special about eight "buffalos"; any sentence consisting solely of the word "buffalo" repeated any number of times is grammatically correct.
Anyone who wants to go down that rabbit hole, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sen...
404media are good people with good repute in the infosec space (and it's the only journalism I pay for). They're all former Motherboard staff, with names you might recognize: Joseph Cox, Samantha Cole, Emanuel Maiberg, Jason Koebler.
Their operation goes like this:
1) Steal/scrape content from human influencers (photos, videos)
2) Generated a face using some generative model, and deep fake it onto the data scraped from (1).
3) Automate the process with text and engagement, using some GPT model to generate the description / dialogue / etc.
4) Deploy on IG/TikTok/Onlyfans/etc.
5) Purchase followers.
Wait or pay for some "This influencer is not real!" article, which is then again re-generated and spread further by some AI news generator.
Real people see the content on their social media feed, and contribute to "organic growth". Clueless people start paying for the "exclusive" OF content and what not.
EDIT: Also, I've seen an explosion in AI/ML generated celebrity thirst traps on social media. Not outright porn, but FB/IG "friendly" photos - usually in the setting of some happening (academy awards, met gala, and general red carpet stuff). Thousands of comments and likes.
My Instagram feed is under attack too.
Everything is. Even totally unimportant stuff. Sad beans.
If the source you're looking at mostly provides commentary on other people's coverage (e.g. the Verge summarizing a paywalled NYT article), that's a good signal for detecting quantity over quality publications.
And I know people who “work” on this. They just ChatGPT prompt some shit, long posts, and paste it in. Sure its “relevant” but all reads like those recipe blogs and just repeats the same thing.
I use DDG/Brave search, but it may only be a matter of time.
It's the enshitification of the entire internet, not just Google unfortunately.
I use them all the time for work. !mdn for MDN, !dnab for .NET, !npm for NPM, !py3 for Python3 docs, !debman for Debian Manpages, !w for Wikipedia, !a for Amazon, !g for Google when you really need it.
I'm not affiliated with DDG; I just really, really love it.
It's a bit using the a particular search engine from your browser.
Just look at that list of bangs you provided. It's a techie/dev's wet dream of sources. Not one of them is something somebody's mom is going to give one iota of a concern about.
For every non-satisfactory "recipe" or "review" search, I can see people just forgetting about how they couldn't find what they wanted and since the "wins" of casual searches still overshadows "losses" of specific searches.
I'm not sure if this tracks, but outside of tech industry people, and friends who just Google everything as "my search + reddit", I haven't heard many complaints.
First I searched Google for the exact phrase, and there were a tonne of articles with basically the same wording. So all AI written content.
Then I used the data filter to give me everything from before June 2022 and there were the same numbers worked differently, but nothing specifying the source.
Then I tried before 2018 and found one article referencing the data from a press release by Akamai in 2009. It contained a URL, but it's no longer live.
There was also one other article dated 2015 that had the same sentence that ChatGPT gave me. However the article sounded like it was written by AI, so I'm guessing somebody just set the post date wrong on the article.
The fact that so much of the news media produces no original reporting is the problem. The fact that they can easily be replaced by machines is a symptom.
It's often piecemeal work where a freelancer is writing articles and they get paid based on all the metrics that we hate.
It's set up to be as close to lorem ipsum as possible.
How would you radically transform the industry in a way that those polluters go away?
The only thing that will stop this behavior is if AI generated content is proven to be less profitable than human generated content, which is a possibility if quality drops low enough, or the capabilities of AI versus cost stop making financial sense. But that has to happen at scale, and it might require a collapse of the tech industry in general, because everything, everywhere will be integrated with AI at that point.
I strongly believe we can do better but it's complicated and hard.
I've been working in startups, equity, fund raising ... I have a large portfolio and do lots of investing so my views are conflicted and complicated - the most profitable stuff we're making isn't great.
In Canada we can send money bank to bank via eTransfer, but there is a 50c flat fee for amounts <$100. There's no widget you can install on your site, you would need to ask people to login to your bank account or app and select the recipient manually. That level of friction would turn most people off.
I'm not saying that's not a solution just because it hasn't worked, just that the sauce is more subtle and harder to get right
I get so frustrated with articles that essentially summarize the content on the original source, even say that it was "first reported" by another publication, but then don't link to it!
Even worse, the chain of recycled content is sometimes like half a dozen links deep. It's idiotic, and a complete disservice to your readers.
I get that the competition for ad dollars is brutal, but wtf.
It’s not like LLMs are displacing any valuable jobs in this case. I want actual journalists to get paid to write novel stories, but this is really only a threat to industries that have been making a buck off of low effort republishing.
https://oldtimemusic.com/the-meaning-behind-the-song-the-rat...
Fuck this new web.
I happen to know that, say, Microsoft, currently is publishing AI-generated news articles, with predictable results. [0] It's easy enough for me to disregard everything I see on Microsoft news, but the set of outlets I need to remember to ignore is only going to grow.
Somewhat related: StackOverflow has already banned AI-generated answers.
[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/02/tech/microsoft-ai-news/in...
SEO spam has been a thing for a long time that has made their way into top rank spots for some queries making it frustratingly hard to find answers.
If you make the war against SEO spam in general they'll catch themselves in the crossfire.