[nuancebydefault]

HN crowd is so very skeptical about the usefulness of a.i., especially related to content generation. I share the skepticism (the positive and hence out of control feedback loop of ai consuming its own content recursively). But on the other hand, when smart people enhance the primitives of the a.i. algorithms, a.i. might become better at rating the quality of its own output. Not by means of the question, 'does this look like anything found on the internet' , rather by the question, 'does this make sense, is this even possible, do the numbers add up' ? Also, it is not very hard to "freeze" a pre-ai knowledge base or NN, and use that as a reference for sensibility.

[coldtea]

>But on the other hand, when smart people enhance the primitives of the a.i. algorithms, a.i. might become better at rating the quality of its own output

All incentives of massive industries like SPAM, "content creation", "news" publishing, and advertising, are against it becoming better at rating the quality of its output - or rather, just have it become better at being undetactable but still a cheap fast mass produced wall of text...

[nuancebydefault]

Again typical (not necessarily unwarranted though) HN skepticism... Think about other uses of AI. For instance, Medical advice, SW dev tools, engineering aid,... Pattern recognition for climate study, better interactive assistants,... These use cases and the businesses around it are not necessarily "just generate some content as click-bait" driven.