Slothin along singing a song, lost in a AI wonder land!
Gooood evening buzzers! What a buzz filled day it's been! After spending my day catching up with the watchers, WOO and the cartel, if you know you know, I thought I better get some posts done!
With that in mind I set off to make the slothbuzz meme post, turns out, there was a winner! Yee-haw!
So with that spanner in the works, it threw me for the day! Where am I, what am I doing? How did things come to this?
The talk on hive has been all the buzz recently, should we allow AI content, and who should be responsible for curating/removing it? Things have been heating up and the debates have already taken many turns. I want to dive into it in more detail soon, but for now, my brain is fried!
The plan for the rest of the evening is to take the dog for his last walk of the evening then get wrapped up and hunker down for tonight! Here's hoping tomorrow is a more productive day!
Well, that's all I've got. Sloth out!
I wonder what triggered this sudden hype.
Yes, I got fooled by ChatGPT post once, found out two days later it was pure AI content.
Did not like that, tried to learn how to recognize it.
Chatting with Karina helped a lot with that to find out the style and how it tries to avoid pissing anyone off.
I too have that fear more often than I'd like which then in turn made me fear being flagged as AI even though I'm not. Crazy, right? Feel like living in 1984 all of a sudden.
Then I realized my writing is way to personal, too much me in it, to be confused with an AI.
Anyway, before this turns into its own posting again (Also happening too often for my taste lately), back to the original question: Why the sudden explosion of the topic? Any idea?
Interesting how you say “fooled” by a chatGPT post, a post is a post at the end of the day, if the content is something you enjoyed reading enough to upvote, should it matter if it was purely the author or AI? As long as it’s not plagiarised, why should it matter if a human or AI is behind it?
Where the issue mainly lies is those “gaming” the system to milk rewards with low quality posts. In addition, should it be up to a centralised authority to control what content is and is not allowed, especially in each community/project of Hive.
I think it’s a great topic to discuss, people should be able to speak freely and not fear being targeted for an opinion on the matter. It would seem the general MSM buzz re AI and chatGPT helped highlight it to more people who would be willing to use it for nefarious purposes.
Recently Hive Watchers declared their stance as against AI, in turn “blacklisting” several users, some being prominent figures within Hive, hence the current Hive buzz around it.
Nah, I felt fooled. When I upvote, I want to honor the creator's effort for making me enjoy the post. If it's just AI created the effort was a simple prompt to the AI. That's not much of an effort.
If it's an original text, the effort was thinking about it, typing it, spellchecking it, maybe even editing it and all that stuff going into a post with more than two paragraphs.
What if you never found out it was AI generated, you’d never have been any the wiser.
Half the time I don’t even look at the author of a post when I’m reading them, I’d probably struggle to tell if it was AI generated or not. Depending what the article is I don’t think it would really sway me either way. If I like it, I’d upvote it.
Depending how much effort was put in, I guess, a simple…write a blog about x. And copy pasta is a little low effort. Putting at least enough effort in to shape the story even with AI assistance shouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.
For now, on hive at least, citing AI seems to be the key. Then users are able to make up their own mind how they proceed with voting or not.
That is a totally different dilemma. The talk right now is about those who get caught using AI without clarifying it. Which ties together with:
It is similar to using picture sources. Going the extra mile to create an image or using one from an external source? As long as you source it properly it's ok, I agree with that. It is the basis of professional scientific work and other forms of art and writing. Did not create it yourself? Declare it as such.
And this is the grey area. At which point is the authors own input enough to lose the source and no more need to declare it as such?
The same argument can be made for any "human created" content, if it's based on anything other than personal experience, at what point does it stop becoming regurgitated information and start becoming "human content"?
(TLDR further down)
The question is not what it is based upon.
If I recap a funny event from this morning, I am not copy&pasting. I put effort in my choice of words, narrative style, even some narrative devices, maybe I make it a poem or a script/play.
That is content created by me. It is based upon something else but my own work and personal touch went into it. And almost every post on Hive is based on something. Be it game reports, pictures taken on a walk or being creative and documenting it to create a post.
In all these posts it is clear to the reader what is the original thought, where did it come from, what did the author do with it and ultimately: What was the author's effort in creating this post.
When that line blurs too much, we enter the grey area. Long discussion to be had.
However, at the end of that grey area lies the following:
Generating art/text or any other content by AI or even other similar tools, posting it and not declaring it, that is (in my opinion) a big no no. It is like plagiarism. The reader assumes work and effort done by the author that clearly was not performed. Yet the reward is mostly based on a value the reader gives to these attributes.
Back to the grey are. You picked a good example: Let AI write a story based on a pitch you gave it. Then "polish" it. Clearly the author put effort and work into that. When does it become his sole piece of work? The pitch/prompt to the AI came from the author. Is the AI just a tool in this case? How much work did the author put into it?
If I draw a circle with gimp, I use a tool so I don't have to place every pixel myself.
I can also use it to color in a gradient background from blue to red. Easily done. And today, when I would show you a circle with a gradient color filling you as the reader would assume as much. You know the tools, they exist for a long time and are common practice.
But we are not yet there with AI.
If Hive had existed when computer aided drawing was in its beginning I would have said even pictures created by yourself should be sourced so the reader/viewer knows the tools you have used. Over time that would have faded into today's common practice of just stating "Did it myself".
In years to come AI will be at that point. But not yet. Every use of AI should just be clarified/stated and that is it. Still a valid posting, nothing to worry about. The reader can decide how they want to reward the post based on that information. But holding back that information is in my opinion close to cheating, trying to obscure the fact that a very powerful tool was used.
TLDR:
Simply state any use of AI and it can be posted. The community will decide how it is rewarded and where this development will take us.
Over time AI will most likely become a common tool and the premise of its usage will take care of the need for citation.
That seems to be the way for now, it'll be interesting to see how Hive and AI progress in the coming months and years as the technology improves and becomes more integrated with Daily life.
I read someone else mentioning it will make people stupid, much like mobiles and other tech used to "help" people. It makes us lazy and stupid. Will there be any "new" writers in times to come, or will youth of today grow up with AI and it's capability and actually degrade their own skills.
As with many other advances in the past, some will become stupid because it it. Yes. Others will become better because of it.
Latter group will discover the potential use as a tool and how to properly use it.
The invention of cars did make some people fat. Using a car to drive only a quarter mile to the little shop around the corner just to pick up a bag of chips. Instead of going for a walk.
On the other hand, the invention of the car allows people to reach sporting locations that would be unreachable in a reasonable amount of time by walking. I regularly drive my son to ice skating once a week, it's a twenty minute drive.
But the 5 minute walk to daycare is most times not done via car. (With the occasional exception of course, when dropping him off on the way to work for example).
Anyway, you get the gist.
!LOL
lolztoken.com
He said nothing.
Credit: reddit
@slothlydoesit, I sent you an $LOLZ on behalf of @memehive
(3/10)
Use the !LOL or !LOLZ command to share a joke and an $LOLZ
Congratulations @slothlydoesit! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Us seeing a ChatGPT written post
No ChatGPT's were harmed in the making of this post lol