#ai content value

[taazaofferss]

How to Make Money Blogging With AI in 2023

How to Make Money Blogging With AI in 2023? Can I Use AI to Make Money Blogging in 2023? Artificial intelligence and machine learning are revolutionizing the way content is created. AI tools can generate blog content at scale, saving time and money for bloggers. With the right strategy, AI can help you make money from your blog in 2023 and beyond. Can I Start a Blog Using AI? Yes! There are…

[the-crooked-library]

do you ever read a post and suddenly understand that some people have no faith in human creativity whatsoever

like. I just saw a screenshot of a tweet that claimed the reason the Victorians were able to write such “weird” fiction like Dracula and The Picture of Dorian Gray was bc of the poisons in everything they had.

Dracula

and

The Picture of Dorian Gray

forget giving Victorian orphans Taco Bell, I have a list of books, films, and TV series I NEED this person to see

[dustofthedailylife]

Just went to read a fic during my dinner break and for some reason, I thought the wording sounded like AI.

With the increase in AI-generated content, I went and threw it into GPTZero (AI-detection tool) and...

I'm well aware it's not a 100% proof but still... I'm so disappointed.

I tried some things and it seems to be fairly accurate from what I can tell. I quickly had chat GPT generate a text for the bg-story of my OC (did it for test purposes and did not save it because lol) and it showed it as AI and then I yeeted my latest Alhaitham fic in there and it says human 👇🏻

It's not 100% proof but what GPTZero says is fairly accurate from what I can tell.

AI fic "authors" are already among us. And I'm frustrated as hell about it. Like... why do we as fanfic authors even put in the effort anymore? ._.

Edit: Because it was a good input from someone: these tools are not 100% accurate or proof like I said. Don't go and accuse someone directly of AI generating or publicly expose them! (It's also why I didn't name drop or show the fic). Albeit... It's a fact that there are people who "write" their fics with AI ._.

[moonindoon]

Cracking the Code: Manifesting Success with AI-Driven Marketing Strategies

As the domain of marketing technology continues to grow at a rapid pace and is driven by growth in artificial intelligence (AI) and personalization, marketers encounter exciting opportunities as well as daunting challenges. Adapting to these changes requires practical approaches that allow organizations to stay current, manage change effectively, and operate at scale.

In this article, we explore five practical tactics to help modern marketing teams adapt and thrive in this dynamic environment:

Embrace More 'Human' Customer Engagement Technology:

While chatbots have been around for decades, advancements in AI have significantly enhanced their capabilities. Today, AI-powered chatbots can engage with customers in a remarkably human-like manner, providing round-the-clock support and valuable insights.

Leveraging chatbots not only improves customer experience but also generates valuable data for outbound marketing initiatives. By analyzing customer queries and interactions, marketers can easily get valuable data that can enhance their marketing strategies.

Harness Customer Data Responsibly:

Customers willingly share personal information with companies, providing valuable insights into their preferences, behaviours, and sentiments. Marketers must mine this data responsibly and use it to deliver personalized experiences and targeted offers.

By leveraging predictive analytics and machine learning, marketers can analyze data faster and make informed decisions to enhance omnichannel marketing efforts.

Utilize Content Repurposing Tools:

Authentic content remains paramount in marketing, but creating content for various channels and platforms can be challenging. Content repurposing tools like Optimizely and Interaction Studio help marketers adapt long-form content into social media posts, videos, and other formats.

Expanding your content footprint not only enhances brand visibility but also allows for faster learning and adaptation to changing market dynamics.

Invest in Upskilling Your Team:

While AI-based tools offer significant automation potential, managing and mastering these technologies require skilled professionals. Marketers must invest in continuous learning and cross-functional collaboration to stay ahead.

Effective leadership and teamwork are essential for navigating the complexities of modern marketing. Encouraging knowledge sharing and collaboration across teams fosters a culture of innovation and growth.

Embrace Transformational Opportunities:

As AI continues to reshape the marketing landscape, traditional metrics of success are being redefined. Marketers must embrace the transformative potential of AI and other emerging technologies to serve their customers better.

When evaluating new ideas and technologies, marketers should prioritize customer value and align them with their brand and company values. By focusing on solutions that genuinely benefit customers, marketers can drive meaningful impact and success.

In conclusion, navigating the ever-evolving domain of AI-driven marketing requires a blend of innovative strategies and steadfast principles. By embracing more human-centric engagement technologies, responsibly harnessing customer data, utilizing content repurposing tools, investing in team upskilling, and embracing transformational opportunities, modern marketing teams can position themselves for success. The key lies in adapting to change while remaining true to customer-centric values, fostering collaboration, and prioritizing solutions that genuinely benefit the audience. With these practical tactics in hand, marketers can not only thrive but also lead the way in shaping the future of marketing.

[ashirisu]

hey all, friendly and also not-so-friendly reminder that if you want to maintain a consistent rubric on how to identify ai-generated art and writing, please stop posting about how to identify it. all we’re doing is giving devs feedback on how to improve their plagiarism machines.

if someone reposts something that you suspect is ai art, please let them know quietly and privately! no free troubleshooting for the capitalist shills 😌

[mehmetyildizmelbourne-blog]

A Short Video Intro to Our Substack Mastery Program

All authentic and ethical writers are welcome to join our exciting journey, Dear subscribers, I am a volunteer editor, content curator, and media coordinator of ILLUMINATION Integrated Publications on Medium.com and Substack.com. We recently created a new publication called Substack Mastery to showcase the newsletters and posts of our writers on Medium. Now our next initiative is to give…

[redstonedust]

i miss when AI generated content was bad. when the standard was like ''i asked AI to show me a picture of a dog'' and the result is just some furry flesh amalgam with 3 paws and a mis-centered face. when people asked AI to write it scripts for tv shows and it gave nonsequeter nonsense. genuinely got more value out of that because at least it was funny.

[imsobadatnicknames2]

How can you consider yourself any sort of leftist when you defend AI art bullshit? You literally simp for AI techbros and have the gall to pretend you're against big corporations?? Get fucked

I don't "defend" AI art. I think a particular old post of mine that a lot of people tend to read in bad faith must be making the rounds again lmao.

Took me a good while to reply to this because you know what? I decided to make something positive out of this and use this as an opportunity to outline what I ACTUALLY believe about AI art. If anyone seeing this decides to read it in good or bad faith... Welp, your choice I guess.

I have several criticisms of the way the proliferation of AI art generators and LLMs is making a lot of things worse. Some of these are things I have voiced in the past, some of these are things I haven't until now:

Most image and text AI generators are fine-tuned to produce nothing but the most agreeable, generically pretty content slop, pretty much immediately squandering their potential to be used as genuinely interesting artistic tools with anything to offer in terms of a unique aesthetic experience (AI video still manages to look bizarre and interesting but it's getting there too)

In the entertainment industry and a lot of other fields, AI image generation is getting incorporated into production pipelines in ways that lead to the immiseration of working artists, being used to justify either lower wages or straight-up layoffs, and this is something that needs to be fought against. That's why I unconditionally supported the SAG-AFTRA strikes last year and will unconditionally support any collective action to address AI art as a concrete labor issue

In most fields where it's being integrated, AI art is vastly inferior to human artists in any use case where you need anything other than to make a superficially pretty picture really fast. If you need to do anything like ask for revisions or minor corrections, give very specific descriptions of how objects and people are interacting with each other, or just like. generate several pictures of the same thing and have them stay consistent with each other, you NEED human artists and it's preposterous to think they can be replaced by AI.

There is a lot of art on the internet that consists of the most generically pretty, cookie-cutter anime waifu-adjacent slop that has zero artistic or emotional value to either the people seeing it or the person churning it out, and while this certainly was A Thing before the advent of AI art generators, generative AI has made it extremely easy to become the kind of person who churns it out and floods online art spaces with it.

Similarly, LLMs make it extremely easy to generate massive volumes of texts, pages, articles, listicles and what have you that are generic vapid SEO-friendly pap at best and bizzarre nonsense misinformation at worst, drowning useful information in a sea of vapid noise and rendering internet searches increasingly useless.

The way LLMs are being incorporated into customer service and similar services not only, again, encourages further immiseration of customer service workers, but it's also completely useless for most customers.

A very annoyingly vocal part the population of AI art enthusiasts, fanatics and promoters do tend to talk about it in a way that directly or indirectly demeans the merit and skill of human artists and implies that they think of anyone who sees anything worthwile in the process of creation itself rather than the end product as stupid or deluded.

So you can probably tell by now that I don't hold AI art or writing in very high regard. However (and here's the part that'll get me called an AI techbro, or get people telling me that I'm just jealous of REAL artists because I lack the drive to create art of my own, or whatever else) I do have some criticisms of the way people have been responding to it, and have voiced such criticisms in the past.

I think a lot of the opposition to AI art has critstallized around unexamined gut reactions, whipping up a moral panic, and pressure to outwardly display an acceptable level of disdain for it. And in particular I think this climate has made a lot of people very prone to either uncritically entertain and adopt regressive ideas about Intellectual Propety, OR reveal previously held regressive ideas about Intellectual Property that are now suddenly more socially acceptable to express:

(I wanna preface this section by stating that I'm a staunch intellectual property abolitionist for the same reason I'm a private property abolitionist. If you think the existence of intellectual property is a good thing, a lot of my ideas about a lot of stuff are gonna be unpalatable to you. Not much I can do about it.)

A lot of people are suddenly throwing their support behind any proposal that promises stricter copyright regulations to combat AI art, when a lot of these also have the potential to severely udnermine fair use laws and fuck over a lot of independent artist for the benefit of big companies.

It was very worrying to see a lot of fanfic authors in particular clap for the George R R Martin OpenAI lawsuit because well... a lot of them don't realize that fanfic is a hobby that's in a position that's VERY legally precarious at best, that legally speaking using someone else's characters in your fanfic is as much of a violation of copyright law as straight up stealing entire passages, and that any regulation that can be used against the latter can be extended against the former.

Similarly, a lot of artists were cheering for the lawsuit against AI art models trained to mimic the style of specific artists. Which I agree is an extremely scummy thing to do (just like a human artist making a living from ripping off someone else's work is also extremely scummy), but I don't think every scummy act necessarily needs to be punishable by law, and some of them would in fact leave people worse off if they were. All this to say: If you are an artist, and ESPECIALLY a fan artist, trust me. You DON'T wanna live in a world where there's precedent for people's artstyles to be considered intellectual property in any legally enforceable way. I know you wanna hurt AI art people but this is one avenue that's not worth it.

Especially worrying to me as an indie musician has been to see people mention the strict copyright laws of the music industry as a positive thing that they wanna emulate. "this would never happen in the music industry because they value their artists copyright" idk maybe this is a the grass is greener type of situation but I'm telling you, you DON'T wanna live in a world where copyright law in the visual arts world works the way it does in the music industry. It's not worth it.

I've seen at least one person compare AI art model training to music sampling and say "there's a reason why they cracked down on sampling" as if the death of sampling due to stricter copyright laws was a good thing and not literally one of the worst things to happen in the history of music which nearly destroyed several primarily black music genres. Of course this is anecdotal because it's just One Guy I Saw Once, but you can see what I mean about how uncritical support for copyright law as a tool against AI can lead people to adopt increasingly regressive ideas about copyright.

Similarly, I've seen at least one person go "you know what? Collages should be considered art theft too, fuck you" over an argument where someone else compared AI art to collages. Again, same point as above.

Similarly, I take issue with the way a lot of people seem EXTREMELY personally invested in proving AI art is Not Real Art. I not only find this discussion unproductive, but also similarly dangerously prone to validating very reactionary ideas about The Nature Of Art that shouldn't really be entertained. Also it's a discussion rife with intellectual dishonesty and unevenly applied definition and standards.

When a lot of people present the argument of AI art not being art because the definition of art is this and that, they try to pretend that this is the definition of art the've always operated under and believed in, even when a lot of the time it's blatantly obvious that they're constructing their definition on the spot and deliberately trying to do so in such a way that it doesn't include AI art.

They never succeed at it, btw. I've seen several dozen different "AI art isn't art because art is [definition]". I've seen exactly zero of those where trying to seriously apply that definition in any context outside of trying to prove AI art isn't art doesn't end up in it accidentally excluding one or more non-AI artforms, usually reflecting the author's blindspots with regard to the different forms of artistic expression.

(However, this is moot because, again, these are rarely definitions that these people actually believe in or adhere to outside of trying to win "Is AI art real art?" discussions.)

Especially worrying when the definition they construct is built around stuff like Effort or Skill or Dedication or The Divine Human Spirit. You would not be happy about the kinds of art that have traditionally been excluded from Real Art using similar definitions.

Seriously when everyone was celebrating that the Catholic Church came out to say AI art isn't real art and sharing it as if it was validating and not Extremely Worrying that the arguments they'd been using against AI art sounded nearly identical to things TradCaths believe I was like. Well alright :T You can make all the "I never thought I'd die fighting side by side with a catholic" legolas and gimli memes you want, but it won't change the fact that the argument being made by the catholic church was a profoundly conservative one and nearly identical to arguments used to dismiss the artistic merit of certain forms of "degenerate" art and everyone was just uncritically sharing it, completely unconcerned with what kind of worldview they were lending validity to by sharing it.

Remember when the discourse about the Gay Sex cats pic was going on? One of the things I remember the most from that time was when someone went "Tell me a definition of art that excludes this picture without also excluding Fountain by Duchamp" and how just. Literally no one was able to do it. A LOT of people tried to argue some variation of "Well, Fountain is art and this image isn't because what turns fountain into art is Intent. Duchamp's choice to show a urinal at an art gallery as if it was art confers it an element of artistic intent that this image lacks" when like. Didn't by that same logic OP's choice to post the image on tumblr as if it was art also confer it artistic intent in the same way? Didn't that argument actually kinda end up accidentally validating the artistic status of every piece of AI art ever posted on social media? That moment it clicked for me that a lot of these definitions require applying certain concepts extremely selectively in order to make sense for the people using them.

A lot of people also try to argue it isn't Real Art based on the fact that most AI art is vapid but like. If being vapid definitionally excludes something from being art you're going to have to exclude a whooole lot of stuff along with it. AI art is vapid. A lot of art is too, I don't think this argument works either.

Like, look, I'm not really invested in trying to argue in favor of The Artistic Merits of AI art but I also find it extremely hard to ignore how trying to categorically define AI art as Not Real Art not only is unproductive but also requires either a) applying certain parts of your definition of art extremely selectively, b) constructing a definition of art so convoluted and full of weird caveats as to be functionally useless, or c) validating extremely reactionary conservative ideas about what Real Art is.

Some stray thoughts that don't fit any of the above sections.

I've occassionally seen people respond to AI art being used for shitposts like "A lot of people have affordable commissions, you could have paid someone like $30 to draw this for you instead of using the plagiarism algorithm and exploiting the work of real artists" and sorry but if you consider paying an artist a rate that amounts to like $5 for several hours of work a LESS exploitative alternative I think you've got something fucked up going on with your priorities.

Also it's kinda funny when people comment on the aforementioned shitposts with some variation of "see, the usage of AI art robs it of all humor because the thing that makes shitposts funny is when you consider the fact that someone would spend so much time and effort in something so stupid" because like. Yeah that is part of the humor SOMETIMES but also people share and laugh at low effort shitposts all the time. Again you're constructing a definition that you don't actually believe in anywhere outside of this type of conversations. Just say you don't like that it's AI art because you think it's morally wrong and stop being disingenuous.

So yeah, this is pretty much everything I believe about the topic.

I don't "defend" AI art, but my opposition to it is firmly rooted in my principles, and that means I refuse to uncritically accept any anti-AI art argument that goes against those same principles.

If you think not accepting and parroting every Anti-AI art argument I encounter because some of them are ideologically rooted in things I disagree with makes me indistinguishable from "AI techbros" you're working under a fucked up dichotomy.

[zvaigzdelasas]

During a keynote speech in New York on Monday from the managing director of Google's Israel business, an employee in the company's cloud division protested publicly, proclaiming “I refuse to build technology that powers genocide.”

The Google Cloud engineer was subsequently fired, CNBC has learned[...]

There was more internal controversy this week, also tied to the crisis in Gaza.

Ahead of an International Women's Day Summit in Silicon Valley on Thursday, Google's employee message board was hit with an influx of staffer comments about the company's military contracts with Israel. The online forum, which was going to be used to help inform what questions were asked of executives at the event, was shut down for what a spokesperson described to CNBC as "divisive content that is disruptive to our workplace."[...]

In recent weeks, more than 600 Google workers signed a letter addressed to leadership asking that the company drop its sponsorship of the annual Mind the Tech conference promoting the Israeli tech industry. The event on Monday in New York featured an address from Barak Regev, managing director of Google Israel.

A video of the employee protesting during the speech went viral.

“No cloud for apartheid,” the employee yelled. Members of the crowd booed him as he was escorted by security out of the building.

Regev then told the crowd, “Part of the privilege of working in a company, which represents democratic values is giving the stage for different opinions."

A Google spokesperson said the employee was fired for "interfering with an official company-sponsored event" in an email to CNBC on Thursday. "This behavior is not okay, regardless of the issue, and the employee was terminated for violating our policies." The spokesperson didn't specify which policies were violated.[...]

Ahead of Google's International Women's Day summit on Thursday, called Her Power, Her Voice, some women filled the company's internal discussion forum Dory with questions about how the Israeli military contract and Google's AI chatbot Gemini are impacting Palestinian women. Some of the comments had hundreds of "upvotes" from employees, according to internal correspondence viewed by CNBC.[...]

Another highly-rated comment on the forum asked how the company is recognizing Mai Ubeid, a young woman and former Google software engineer who was reportedly killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza along with her family late last year. (Some employees and advocacy groups gathered to honor Ubeid in New York in December.)

One employee asked, "Given the ongoing International War Crimes against Palestinian women, how can we use the 'Her Power, Her Voice' theme to amplify their daily struggles?" The comment received over 100 upvotes.

"It's essential to question how we can truly support the notion of 'Her Power, Her Voice,' while at the same time, ignoring the cries for help from Palestinian women who have been systematically deprived of their fundamental human rights," another said.

As the number of comments swelled, Google prematurely shut down the forum.

8 Mar 24

[claudigitools]

Frase 

Frase is the all-in-one AI Content tool that helps SEO and Content Teams research, write, and optimize better SEO content, faster. 

The Frase Platform has 4 key components: 

Research

Use the top results for any target search query to curate SEO-optimized briefs in minutes. Frase saves you from hours of SERP research by analyzing, dissecting, and centralizing the internet’s best content in one place.

Generate full-length, optimized content briefs in 6 seconds.

Review the main keywords, headers, and concepts in your SEO competitors’ content in one intuitive research panel.

Create and store custom brief templates to streamline your workflow

Use the Outline Builder to streamline outline creation.

Write

Write high-converting, SEO-optimized copy at the click of a button. Make writer’s block a thing of the past with dozens of AI tools that generate automated outlines, blog introductions, product descriptions, FAQ’s and more.

Click “Write for Me” to autocomplete your sentences and even write entire new paragraphs.

Use AI templates to generate controlled outputs like blog intros, high-converting copywriting formulas, FAQ’s, headings, and more...

Improve the quality of your writing with automatic passage paraphrasing and rewriting.

Click “Write for Me” to autocomplete your sentences and even write entire new paragraphs.

Use AI templates to generate controlled outputs like blog intros, high-converting copywriting formulas, FAQ’s, headings, and more.

Improve the quality of your writing with automatic passage paraphrasing and rewriting.

Optimize

An intuitive text editor that uses a topic model to score your content against your competitors. Frase’s list of related topics–as well as the recommended number of mentions for each–will help you write like an expert and publish content that Google will love.

Use Frase’s topic model to identify the keywords you should include in your content.

Compare your content’s keywords with your top competitors.

Content Analytics

A dashboard that automatically identifies and categorizes your best content opportunities. Frase uses your Google Search Console data to serve up actionable insights about what you should work on next.

Identify pages that are starting to slip in the rankings and may need to be refreshed.

Identify high-growing opportunity keywords you are not ranking for yet.

Who is Frase built for?

SEOs

Content Marketers

Marketing Agencies

The #1 Rated AI Software on Capterra

Hundreds of Frase customers reviewed Frase with an avg. rating of 4.8/5.

Start Ranking Content with Frase Today

Get Started!

[girlwarlock]

Someone at tumblr/automattic asked whether requests to opt out of "AI" data sharing would be honored retroactively (which seems important, seeing as tumblr has apparently compiled the user data they're going to send *before* giving any kind of opt-out option) and Automattic's head of "AI" Andrew Spittle responded:

We will notify existing partners on a regular basis about anyone who's opted out since the last time we provided a list. I want this to be an ongoing process where we regularly advocate for past content to be excluded based on current preferences. We will ask that content be deleted and removed from any future training runs. I believe partners will honor this based on our conversations with them to this point. I don't think they gain much overall by retaining it.

And I do not trust midjourney or openai in the slightest--their business models, by their own admission, depend on scraping art they don't have permission to use--so I do not believe that they will honor any requests to remove data already received when requests are made to remove it. So yeah. take that as you will.

Edit

about 20 minutes after I posted this, @staff put out this:

They do not acknowledge that they are definitely actually in the process of selling your data to third parties, but they have a setting which (they claim) will prevent them from sharing information with third parties, including "AI" training businesses.

I've turned it on, but tumblr has burned so much trust that I really don't have faith that tumblr will actually change the package of information that will be provided to these third parties based on the setting: tumblr/automattic must know that "AI" art theft is tremendously unpopular with a huge portion of tumblr, and that having this setting (even with a "you must know about it to use it" opt out setting) will result in a bunch of users setting their unintuitive "don't share with third parties" setting to "on" which will diminish the value of the sale.

I don't think tumblr will honor this setting.

[aiweirdness]

Many most uses of large language models are dubious. This one has no redeeming value whatsoever.

404's uphill battle with people using AI to steal content

[whompthatsucker1981]

you said you think gay sex cats is the new duchamp's fountain. i dont disagree and i kinda see what you mean already but please elaborate

it was a silly and tongue in cheek way to say that a lot of people are getting mad about it in a way that implies reactionary views on art, and that there's no way to say gay sex cats isn't art that wouldn't also imply that the fountain isn't art. a funny meme image is a funny meme image, but it is also funny to overthink and recontextualize them as art.

and the reaction makes the comparison even more apt. neural net generated artworks are anonymized mass produced images, vast majority having no artistic pretension or meaningful content such as a thomas kinkade painting. gay sex cats was made with no intent to be art, but the discourse it has with audience reaction and its appropriation in derivative works make it so. why is gay sex cats not art if people talking about it negatively allow it to be called art? is art only things you find beautiful and valuable? if so, what is value and beauty, and how do you draw the line? if gay sex cats was still ai generated but had more "aesthetic qualities" would it be art? if someone copies the original image by hand with all its ai generated faults where is the value generated? does the original still have no merit of its own, even after appropriation as a digital ready-made?

but the main reason as to why gay sex cats is comparable to the fountain still is because it made a lot of people with bad takes on art really really mad. and that the pissed off tags wouldn't look out of place as reaction to modern art in the 1920s. art is a flat circle

EDIT: well. putting an addendum because in retrospect more people took either or both the op and image in face value and much more self serious than ever intended. a lot of people understood the tone i was getting at, and i still stand by the questionings i added on, but still for clarification. the original comparison is not serious. it's self evidently ridiculous to compare a meme image to a historically significant artwork, the comparison was only drawn because they were both controversial to an audience, who reacted denying their status as respectively as an image and as art, and that it was funny that the negative reaction people had to the original image explicitly denied its status as art, even if the meme never had pretension to be art, so it was funny to draw a comparison and iterate on that.

i did think it was valid to bring in questionings about art and meaning because that's the reaction i saw most and wanted to make people think about the whys, and that also i do not think it's valid to base your dislike on ai art on either grounds of questioning its position and value as artwork, or even as a question of ip theft. regular degular handmade art can be soulless, repetitive, thoughtless, derivative, unethical, open and blatant theft, and much more, and that does not make it any less of an artwork. neural nets are tools that generate images by statistic correlation through human input.

the unambiguous issue with neural nets in art is its use as a tool by capital, to threaten already underpaid and overworked working artists and to keep their labor hostage under threat of total automation. in hindsight i regretted not adding the paragraph above as it was a way in which people could either misinterpret or assume things about me, but hindsight is hindsight and there's no way to predict how posts would blow up. so shrugs. i had written more posts in my blog that elaborated on that because asks would bot stop coming. and i think my takeaway is that people will reblog anything with a funny image without reading the words around it, or even closely looking at the image.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The Coprophagic AI crisis

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me in TORONTO on Mar 22, then with LAURA POITRAS in NYC on Mar 24, then Anaheim, and more!

A key requirement for being a science fiction writer without losing your mind is the ability to distinguish between science fiction (futuristic thought experiments) and predictions. SF writers who lack this trait come to fancy themselves fortune-tellers who SEE! THE! FUTURE!

The thing is, sf writers cheat. We palm cards in order to set up pulp adventure stories that let us indulge our thought experiments. These palmed cards – say, faster-than-light drives or time-machines – are narrative devices, not scientifically grounded proposals.

Historically, the fact that some people – both writers and readers – couldn't tell the difference wasn't all that important, because people who fell prey to the sf-as-prophecy delusion didn't have the power to re-orient our society around their mistaken beliefs. But with the rise and rise of sf-obsessed tech billionaires who keep trying to invent the torment nexus, sf writers are starting to be more vocal about distinguishing between our made-up funny stories and predictions (AKA "cyberpunk is a warning, not a suggestion"):

https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2023/11/dont-create-the-torment-nexus.html

In that spirit, I'd like to point to how one of sf's most frequently palmed cards has become a commonplace of the AI crowd. That sleight of hand is: "add enough compute and the computer will wake up." This is a shopworn cliche of sf, the idea that once a computer matches the human brain for "complexity" or "power" (or some other simple-seeming but profoundly nebulous metric), the computer will become conscious. Think of "Mike" in Heinlein's *The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress#Plot

For people inflating the current AI hype bubble, this idea that making the AI "more powerful" will correct its defects is key. Whenever an AI "hallucinates" in a way that seems to disqualify it from the high-value applications that justify the torrent of investment in the field, boosters say, "Sure, the AI isn't good enough…yet. But once we shovel an order of magnitude more training data into the hopper, we'll solve that, because (as everyone knows) making the computer 'more powerful' solves the AI problem":

https://locusmag.com/2023/12/commentary-cory-doctorow-what-kind-of-bubble-is-ai/

As the lawyers say, this "cites facts not in evidence." But let's stipulate that it's true for a moment. If all we need to make the AI better is more training data, is that something we can count on? Consider the problem of "botshit," Andre Spicer and co's very useful coinage describing "inaccurate or fabricated content" shat out at scale by AIs:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4678265

"Botshit" was coined last December, but the internet is already drowning in it. Desperate people, confronted with an economy modeled on a high-speed game of musical chairs in which the opportunities for a decent livelihood grow ever scarcer, are being scammed into generating mountains of botshit in the hopes of securing the elusive "passive income":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/15/passive-income-brainworms/#four-hour-work-week

Botshit can be produced at a scale and velocity that beggars the imagination. Consider that Amazon has had to cap the number of self-published "books" an author can submit to a mere three books per day:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/20/amazon-restricts-authors-from-self-publishing-more-than-three-books-a-day-after-ai-concerns

As the web becomes an anaerobic lagoon for botshit, the quantum of human-generated "content" in any internet core sample is dwindling to homeopathic levels. Even sources considered to be nominally high-quality, from Cnet articles to legal briefs, are contaminated with botshit:

https://theconversation.com/ai-is-creating-fake-legal-cases-and-making-its-way-into-real-courtrooms-with-disastrous-results-225080

Ironically, AI companies are setting themselves up for this problem. Google and Microsoft's full-court press for "AI powered search" imagines a future for the web in which search-engines stop returning links to web-pages, and instead summarize their content. The question is, why the fuck would anyone write the web if the only "person" who can find what they write is an AI's crawler, which ingests the writing for its own training, but has no interest in steering readers to see what you've written? If AI search ever becomes a thing, the open web will become an AI CAFO and search crawlers will increasingly end up imbibing the contents of its manure lagoon.

This problem has been a long time coming. Just over a year ago, Jathan Sadowski coined the term "Habsburg AI" to describe a model trained on the output of another model:

https://twitter.com/jathansadowski/status/1625245803211272194

There's a certain intuitive case for this being a bad idea, akin to feeding cows a slurry made of the diseased brains of other cows:

https://www.cdc.gov/prions/bse/index.html

But "The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forget," a recent paper, goes beyond the ick factor of AI that is fed on botshit and delves into the mathematical consequences of AI coprophagia:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17493

Co-author Ross Anderson summarizes the finding neatly: "using model-generated content in training causes irreversible defects":

https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2023/06/06/will-gpt-models-choke-on-their-own-exhaust/

Which is all to say: even if you accept the mystical proposition that more training data "solves" the AI problems that constitute total unsuitability for high-value applications that justify the trillions in valuation analysts are touting, that training data is going to be ever-more elusive.

What's more, while the proposition that "more training data will linearly improve the quality of AI predictions" is a mere article of faith, "training an AI on the output of another AI makes it exponentially worse" is a matter of fact.

Name your price for 18 of my DRM-free ebooks and support the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the Humble Cory Doctorow Bundle.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/14/14/inhuman-centipede#enshittibottification

Image: Plamenart (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Double_Mobius_Strip.JPG

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[mehmetyildizmelbourne-blog]

On the Path to Substack Success

How I’m building my Substack newsletters one step at a time with a supportive community I love to write. I love to write about what I love. Travel, relationships, books, deep insights, AI, photography, storytelling and a whole lot of interesting, sparkly, pretty topics that catch my eye. I like to think I’m good at it, with people who follow me and a steady income on Medium. A pleasant little…

[fandomsandfeminism]

I know that "hbomberguy emerges from a well armed with a whip to chastise humanity and murder Jamez Somerton" is the funny take on the recent events.

But I also keep thinking about why there's so much lazy plagiarism/content theft on Youtube/Tiktok/Twitched

Now, I know the commodification of art isn't a NEW situation, but between social media and AI, it does seem like we've broken into a new plateau of content mill Era. And artists SHOULD and NEED to get paid. But when the value of "art" is reduced to clicks and ad revenue, I think the system becomes primed for this kind of low effort theft.

Somerton and Illuminaughti and all the others wouldn't have been plagiarizing and content stealing if it wasn't making them so much fucking money to do so.