7 ms·

Every day that passes I grow fonder of Google's decision to delay or otherwise keep a lot of this under the wraps. The other day I was scrolling down on YouTub

• halyconWays 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • thr3000 2y ago
    So is yours! Mine isn't, however. I am a hard-nosed real boy now.
    • tenpies 2y ago
      Write something that an LLM could never write. (This is my latest favorite prompt and interview/conversation question)
      • Kiro 2y ago
        You go first.
      • definitelynotai 2y ago
        [dead]
      • woctordho 2y ago
        3e4a3ad9f05fdfb609dda6e5f512e52506f4c1053962e21bfd93f1ed81582d16ca0fef9574fb07ab62f8f5b1373b4ddd541804c0d176f4a557d900b05047e853 (This is the hash of a string randomly popped in my mind. An LLM will write this with almost 0 probability --- until this is crawled into the training sets)
      • Der_Einzige 2y ago
        If you’re not actively publishing at top conferences (I.e. NeurIPS), than this is a trash question and shows the lack of knowledge that many who are now entering the field will have. Anything that you or others can answer to this which isn’t some stupid “gotcha” puzzle shit (lol it’s video cus LLMs aren’t video models amiright?) will be wrong because of things like structured decoding and the fact that ultra high temperature works with better samplers like min_p. https://openreview.net/forum?id=FBkpCyujtS&noteId=mY7FMnuuC9 https://openreview.net/forum?id=FBkpCyujtS&noteId=mY7FMnuuC9
• quenix 2y ago
  It saddens me. Innovations in AI 'art' generation (music, audio, photo) have been a net negative to society and are already actively harming the Internet and our media sphere. Like I said in another comment, LLMs are cool and useful, but who in the hell asked for AI art? It's good enough to fool people and break the fragile trust relationship we had with online content, but is also extremely shit and carries no meaning or depth whatsoever.
  • mojuba 2y ago
    I think AI "art" can be as useful as the text generators, i.e. only within certain limits of dull and stupid stuff that needs to exist but has little to no value. For example, you need to generate a landing page for your boring company: text, images, videos and the overall design (as well as code!) can be and should be generated because... who cares about your boring company's landing page, right?
    • carlosjobim 2y ago
      Then you don't understand the purpose of a landing page. If the boring company hires somebody to make the landing page who actually understands their job, the landing page will have great importance.
      • yunwal 2y ago
        > the landing page will have great importance. Most companies don't need this. They need a page that has their contact info and some general information about services they provide so they can have a bare minimum internet presence and show up on google maps.
        • carlosjobim 2y ago
          Absolutely, if your company doesn't want to make sales or if you want to be bothered all the time by people calling and mailing only for them to find out your product isn't a fit for them. Or if you want third party sellers to take over most of your business like Booking.com, AirBnB DoorDash or Amazon. Companies who understand the importance of a customer friendly and functional web presence get a great return on their investment. And it's much better for the customer.
• lelandfe 2y ago
  I saw my first AI video that completely fooled commenters: https://imgur.com/a/cbjVKMU https://imgur.com/a/cbjVKMU This was not marked as AI-generated and commenters were in awe at this fuzzy train, missing the "AIGC" signs. I'm quite nervous for the future.
  • dagmx 2y ago
    Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content. I’ve worked in CG for many years and despite the online nerd fests that decry CG imagery in films, 99% of those people can’t tell what’s CG or not unless it’s incredibly obvious. It’s the same for GenAI, though I think there are more tells. Still, most people cannot tell reality from fiction. If you just tell them it’s real, they’ll most likely believe it.
    • dmazzoni 2y ago
      > I’ve worked in CG for many years and despite the online nerd fests that decry CG imagery in films, 99% of those people can’t tell what’s CG or not unless it’s incredibly obvious. I've noticed people assume things are CG that turn out to be practical effects, or 90% practical with just a bit of CG to add detail.
      • dagmx 2y ago
        Yep I’ve had that happen many times , where people assume my work is real and the practical is CG. Worse, directors often lie about what’s practical and we’ll have replaced it with CG. So people online will cheer the “practicals” as being better visually, while not knowing what they’re even looking at. I’ve seen interviews with actors even where they talk about how they look in a given shot or have done something, and not realize they’re not even really in the shot anymore. People just have terrible eyes once you can convince them something is a certain way.
        • Der_Einzige 2y ago
          But films without CG are clearly superior and it’s not even in contention. Lawrence of Arabia or Cleopatra alone have incredible fully live shot special effects which can not be easily replicated with CG and have aged like fine wine, unlike the trash early CG of the 80s and 90s which ruined otherwise great films like the last starfighter
• lanthissa 2y ago
  exactly one lab has passed the test of morals vs profit at this point, and thats deepmind, and they were thoroughly punished for it. Every value oAI has claimed to have hasn't lasted a milisecond longer than there was profit motive to break it, and even anthropic is doing military tech now.
  • dmix 2y ago
    LLMs aren’t AGI
• bko 2y ago
  I don't think Google delayed or kept this under wraps for any noble reasons. I think they were just disorganized as evidenced by their recent scrambling to compete in this space.
• mrcwinn 2y ago
  Too charitable indeed. Google was simply unprepared and has inferior alternatives. My prediction is that next year they will catch up a bit and will not be shy about releasing new technology. They will remain behind in LLMs but at least will more deeply envelope their own existing products, thus creating a narrative of improved innovation and profit potential. They will publicly acknowledge perceived risks and say they have teams ensuring it will be okay.
  • tziki 2y ago
    >They will remain behind in LLMs The latest Gemini version (1206) is at least tied for the best LLM, if not the best outright.
• raincole 2y ago
  Considering google image search is polluted by AI-generated images at this moment, perhaps google is afraid of making the search even worse?
• computerex 2y ago
  They should have kept this amazing tech under the wraps because you have a bad feeling about it? Hate to break it to you, but there have been fake videos on the internet ever since it has existed. There are more ways to fake videos than GenAI. If you haven't been consuming everything on the internet with a high alert bs sensor, then that's an issue of its own. You shouldn't trust things on the internet anyway unless there is overwhelming evidence.
  • sergiogdr 2y ago
    > If you haven't been consuming everything on the internet with a high alert bs sensor, then that's an issue of its own "just be privileged as I was to get all the necessary education to be able to not be fooled by this tech". Yeah, very realistic and compassionate.
    • cma 2y ago
      With a heavy dose of "if masses of people are fooled by this, it can't affect me as long as I can see through it. No possible repercussions of mass people believing completely made up stuff that could affect laws, etc."
      • JPKab 2y ago
        This entire thread reeks of "I'm smart enough to know that videos can be faked, but Jethro in the trailer park isn't because he's just a plumber, and therefore this tech needs to be censored or else Jethro might believe stuff that makes him vote in a way I don't like" going on here. While the average person overestimates their own intelligence, the average techy dramatically underestimates the intelligence of the average member of the public. The weirdos that latch onto every fake video and silly conspiracy theory are dramatically overrepresented in every online comments thread, but supposed geniuses in the tech/NGO/academic community forget this and assume a broad swath of the public believes in stuff like "Pizza gate" because nuanced thinking is a skill only the enlightened few possess.
        • 2y ago
• pier25 2y ago
  I wish Google would allow me to remove the AI stuff from search results. 99% of the times it's either useless or wrong.
  • fraXis 2y ago
    Add a -ai to the end of your Google search query. There are also browser extensions that stop the AI content from displaying. I use the one for Chrome called "Remove Google Search Generative AI".
    • dangerwill 2y ago
      Great tip! But it only remove's Google's terrible AI summary, not AI generated content from showing up in searches, which is what the OP wishes for. A combination of -ai and before:2022-01-01 is probably the closest we can get to that
    • 1kaizen 2y ago
      This is vaporware/false advertising. We don't have tech to correctly "detect ai" in 2024, which is why education has broken down over the last few years with serial cheating in every institution. Every company so far that claimed to detect AI generated slug has failed.
  • titzer 2y ago
    Strong plus one here. Not only that, but it uses gobs of energy in total. Google has reneged on all of its carbon promises to stay in the running for AI domination and to head off disruption to search ads business. Since I've unconsciously trained my brain to not look at the top search results anymore because they long ago turned into impossible-to-distinguish ads, I've quickly learned to just ignore the stupid AI summary. So it's an absurd waste of computational power to generate something wrong that I don't even want to see, and I can't even tell them to stop when they're wasting their own money to do so.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
• makestuff 2y ago
  I don't even know if this will be possible, or how it would work, but it seems like the next iteration of social media will be based on some verification that the user is not using AI or is a bot. Currently they are all incentivized to not stop bot activity because it increases user counts, ad revenue, etc. Maybe the model is you have to pay per account to use it, or maybe the model will be something else. I doubt this will make everyone just go back to primarily communicating in person/via voice servers but that is a possibility.
  • mnau 2y ago
    So Musk was right?
    • CJefferson 2y ago
      No, because Musk encourages AI slop if people are willing to pay. What we probably need (this is going to sound crazy, but I don’t have a better suggestion), is some kind of networked trust system.
      • jeffhuys 2y ago
        Like Community Notes? It's actually a darn good system.
  • joaohaas 2y ago
    Twitter Blue is paid and yet every single bot account has it in order to boost views.
  • debugnik 2y ago
    > Maybe the model is you have to pay per account to use it Spammers can afford more money per bot for their operations than the average user can justify to spend on social media.
• kylehotchkiss 2y ago
  > the image of those people on slot machines, mechanically and soullessly pulling levers because they are addicted. It's just so strange. Worse, the audience is our parents and grandparents. They have little context to be able to sort out reality from this stuff
• dyauspitr 2y ago
  Pandora’s box is open, not releasing models and tools is just going to result in someone else doing it.
• fullstackchris 2y ago
  The ability to make strange videos as a consumer... it's not inherently good or bad, it'll just be... weird
• amaurose 2y ago
  [dead]
• MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
  It doesn't take AI to fool people. They have been propagandised and lied to on a major scale since mass media. They also lie themselves: they cannot detect overt bias or reflect on themselves and be aware of their hidden motives, resentments and wishful thinking. Including me and you. Most people hold important beliefs about the world that are comically inaccurate. AI changes absolutely nothing how many true or false beliefs the average Joe holds.
• freehorse 2y ago
  The way AI goes, it will actually raise the cost of valid services: cost of bullshit and spam is going down, which will raise the cost of valid, non-ai powered services to raise above the noise or be able to filter it out. There is only negative value to what "open"-ai is adding to the world right now. By playing the long-term AI safety card, of the hypothetical scenario some AI supposedly getting conscious in the future, they try to pass themselves clean and innocent in all the damage they cause to society. I just hope the online, social media space gets enshitified to an such a degree that it stops playing a major role in society, though sadly that is not how things usually seem to work.
• whywhywhywhy 2y ago
  They didn’t keep it under wraps, it’s just the team considered the paper shipping not the product. They still shipped the papers that decentralized the knowledge. Could even argue shipping the product and not the paper would have done more for AI safety, least it would be controlled.
• DrScientist 2y ago
  On the other hand by making public what technologies capabilities are - doesn't it stop the problem of people having this tech in secret and using it before anybody is aware it's even possible? ie a company developing this tech, keeping under wraps and say only using for special government programmes....
• soulofmischief 2y ago
  Shorts are designed to trade your valuable attention for trite, low-effort content. Most decent shorts are just clips of longer-form content. Do yourself a favor and avoid that kind of content, opting instead for long-form consumption. The discovery patterns are different, but you're less inclined to encounter fake content if you develop a trust network of good channels.
  • jprete 2y ago
    This is also my strategy. AI content makes me focus even harder on the source of the content instead of the apparent quality, because the current set of GenAI techniques are best at imitating surface-level quality features.
    • soulofmischief 2y ago
      What are some good channels you recommend?
• solfox 2y ago
  On the other hand, because these tools like this are being made available before output is perfected, you and many others are being trained in AI discernment; being able to detect fake things will be a helpful skill to have for some time: another form of critical thinking. It would be FAR worse if a privately held advanced AI's outputs were unleashed without the population being at least somewhat cautious of everything. The real danger imho comes from private silos of advanced general intelligence that aren't shared and used to gain power, control, and money.
  • underdeserver 2y ago
    I think as these things will get bigger and better much faster than we can learn to discern.
    • solfox 2y ago
      With zero doubt. Faster than we expect. And yet, it's nice that we are learning to distrust what we see before the "real real" stuff comes out.
      • Jerrrry 2y ago
        Very convenient for those who are waiting for the waters to get muddier.
      • echelon 2y ago
        Open source has already caught up with SOTA: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1hav4z3/openai_sora_vs_open_source_alternatives_hunyuan/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1hav4z3/op... These are even unfair comparisons because they're leveraging text-to-video instead of the more powerful image-to-video. In the latter case, the results are indistinguishable. Video generation is about to be everywhere, and we're about to have the "Stable Diffusion" moment for video. Look at the comments: people are already fawning over open source being uncensored. Cat's out of the bag.
    • lancesells 2y ago
• stronglikedan 2y ago
  > there were enough AI'esque artifacts that one could confidently conclude it's fake. And yet, you would not have known how to recognize those artifacts without "OpenAI's decisions to unload a lot of this before recognizing the results of unleashing this to humanity".
• serial_dev 2y ago
  You could have said the same thing about photo shop... Some people will learn to spot BS and think critically even if they can't quite put their finger on it and the video is very good (What, Trump fought a T-Rex, AND WON?), some people could be fooled by anything, and there is a lot in between.
• littlestymaar 2y ago
  > And I can't help but be saddened about OpenAI's decisions to unload a lot of this before recognizing the results of unleashing this to humanity Yeah, and it's especially hypocrite coming from them who said they'd refuse to disclose anything about GPT-3 because they said it was dangerous. And then a few years latter: “Hey remember about this thing we told you it was too dangerous before? Now we have a monetization strategy so we're giving access to everyone, today.”
• ActionHank 2y ago
  The best part is that eventually, over time, the AI slop will feed into training data more and more. I suspect it will be like the Kessler Syndrome of AI models.
• tlrobinson 2y ago
  This is all inevitable. At worst it's pulling the issues forward by a few months or years, and I don't think anyone will meaningfully address the problem until it's staring us in the face. I believe the internet needs a distributed trust and reputation layer. I haven't fully thought through all the details, but: - Some way to subscribe to fact checking providers of your choice. - Some way to tie individuals' reputation to the things they post. - Overlay those trust and reputation layers. I want to see a score for every webpage, and be able to drill into what factored into that score, and any additional context people have provided (e.x. Community Notes). There's a huge bootstrapping and incentive problem though. I think all the big players would need to work together to build this. Social media, legacy media companies, browsers, etc. This also presupposes people actually care about the truth, which unfortunately doesn't always seem like the case.