You are comparing apples and oranges. "generating content" does not yet say HOW the data is generated. Here we are specifically talking about probabilistic generative model, which are inherently unsuited for mission critical purposes, as they are engineered right now.
I don't need to do this discussion, this is basic introductory education and consent in University courses about AI and especially about system engineering verification and certification, which is required for most customers on a large scale and mission critical purposes.
Then why are you on HN, replying to exactly that discussion?
We are not teenagers, I may be wrong, I would be okay with it.
> Here we are specifically talking about probabilistic generative model, which are inherently unsuited for mission critical purposes, as they are engineered right now
In what qualitative way does that differ from any kind of data generation?
And what we're saying is stuff like GPT-3 may be improvements on the level of archery --> machine gunning when it comes to online trolling, misinformation, and the like.
Casually dismissing it with "well it's just extra moderation load" is a mistake, I think.
First of all: You were down voted, but I up voted your comment because I respect it.
I still humbly think that it'd still be a cat and mouse game on every side imaginable.
You may argue that this leaves individuals vulnerable (people not being able to discern actual people from chat bots, which was the given example), but in the end, people learn to adapt. They get their own AI assistant to do the job or they keep doing what they did before: Just don't trust anonymous people online. They can be murderers, molesters, terrorists or worse, bots :)
I don't need to do this discussion, this is basic introductory education and consent in University courses about AI and especially about system engineering verification and certification, which is required for most customers on a large scale and mission critical purposes.