[the_shivers]

I feel like this is exaggerating a bit. Spam exists, but the internet is still very usable. It could certainly become worse in the future, but I find it pretty easy to sift through content these days to get what I need.

Also, I don't think the problem is necessarily AI for some of these complaints. Twitter replies are awful because you can pay for increased visibility. On a platform like Reddit where its popularity that determines visibility, the issue virtually disappears. Same issue for SEO spam websites, it's a function of Google's algorithm which incentives brainless keyword spam rather than it being an AI issue. Both of these issues predate generative AI.

The braindead children's youtube videos, for what it's worth, also predate AI.

I feel like these are just growing pains from a revolutionary new technology. Certainly the printing press can enable the spread of a lot of low quality content and misinformation, but we managed to work out the kinks.

[rusty_venture]

> Certainly the printing press can enable the spread of a lot of low quality content and misinformation, but we managed to work out the kinks.

I think the author's point is that generative AI is a completely different animal than the printing press. The printing press could be used to spread both factual information and misinformation alike, and for various reasons factual information seems to have predominated, and high quality information is at least readily available, even if it's not the majority of printed work. Then there's the Internet, which can similarly be used to publish both information and misinformation. Perhaps due to the lower bar for entry and the speed of dissemination, the balance of information to misinformation and high-quality to low-quality content doesn't favor information or high-quality content as strongly as it does in the world of printed text, but at least the Internet always has the potential to spread factual information and high-quality content.

Then there's generative AI. Unlike the two communication technologies referenced above, AI can ONLY produce low-quality content. It is by design a statistical inference technique that generates content remixed from its training data. Without substantial human rework and rewriting, AI will always produce such low-quality drek as "it's hard to learn volleyball without a ball". And it's increasing promoted as a way to reduce human effort in writing, ensuring that people will continue to use it without supervising it's output, especially if they are trying to mass-produce content to make money. So now we have a new situation in which the majority of content produced going forwards is likely to be extremely low quality and perhaps contain substantial misinformation as well, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The author seems to posit that exposure to this type of content will negatively affect people's ability to learn to produce good, original content of their own, as they are not exposed to even passably good writing from a young age, so they cannot learn to emulate it.

[dartos]

People are still very much exploring AI for the first time.

We technically inclined people are ahead of the curve.

One people get a “feel” for what AI content looks like, they’ll be able to filter it out like the do all existing spam.

[jjjjj55555]

If I filter out the AI spam and then the SEO spam, I'm not left with much anything. HN is one of the few online spaces where I feel like I can actually read the thoughts of actual human beings.

Also, like the other person commented, there's another generation coming up for whom AI generated content will be the norm.

[rusty_venture]

As the author points out, young children have no context for good vs. bad text. And when we are young is when we learn our language skills.

[dartos]

I think the similar “flavor” AI text has will, to them, feel like primary school textbook text to us.

It’s just there for information.

Non AI text that doesn’t have that AI flavor will stand out.

[squigz]

> AI can ONLY produce low-quality content.

Stopped reading after this. This is like saying Photoshop can only produce low-quality content.

[rusty_venture]

Photoshop can't produce anything on its own; unlike AI, it needs a human to control each step of the process. AI generates statistically-likely text to follow a human prompt with no further intervention required by the human. And this lack of intervention means there is no human QC to ensure the statistically likely text meets any criteria for stylistic, semantic or logical correctness.

[squigz]

> it needs a human to control each step of the process

Does this possibly include proofreading, editing, etc? Or does the AI automagically upload its content as soon as a human inputs a prompt?

[rusty_venture]

You truly didn't read the comment you replied to:

> And [AI is] increasingly promoted as a way to reduce human effort in writing, ensuring that people will continue to use it without supervising its output, especially if they are trying to mass-produce content to make money.

Yes, editing is still a thing, but all the crap content producers and SEO junkies jumping on the generative AI bandwagon and slathering AI-generated content across the Web can't possibly proofread all the content they're publishing - that would be counterproductive to their goal of producing as much content as fast as possible.

[jjjjj55555]

The problems he described have less to do with the technology and more to do with the fact that people just have way too much time on their hands. We consume garbage content because we don't have anything better that we want to do. Why else would someone read crap articles from SI written from a fake person?

Using the examples of both adults and toddlers to make his point is apt. At least the toddler has no choice.