[quantummagic]

> For example, I recently spent 2 weeks researching Bruce Lee ... [AI] output will just be a reiteration of already common knowledge instead of the actual efforts I made researching all of it.

Presumably you researched Bruce Lee by reading and consuming other media related to him, most of which is likely known by the AI models. They just don't have access to any novel idea that you generated, inspired by your research.

Regardless of their current inabilities, which you're correct about, there's no logical reason that in the long term they can't be similarly inspired by considering the same information and making new connections / conjectures just as you did.

We're making the same mistake that the people who dismissed the early airplane made. "That's a neat trick, but it's too limited and not robust enough to be very useful". Not considering how the technology would evolve from the Wright Brother's prototypes.

[altmanaltman]

> Presumably you researched Bruce Lee by reading and consuming other media related to him, most of which is likely known by the AI models. They just don't have access to any novel idea that you generated, inspired by your research.

Yes, assuming they trained on all written works and all his movies, yes. But again, I found several times where AI is just plain wrong about actual facts and it'll reconsider if you provide actual proof that it's wrong. So just because things are in its training cannot be reliable proof that it actually is retrieving them accurately.

As I said, in theory, we don't have to wait for the trick to be useful. I could very easily dump all my research materials and sources as context, provide it a writing guide to generate text exactly as I want, and it'll do it. In fact, it might generate an article exactly equal to what I wrote, but I don't see how it gets to this point independently, especially given the hallucination problem above.

I'm also not claiming it's not useful; it's useful for brainstorming, checking for awkward phrasing, outlining your thoughts, etc. But it is not really good at creative writing. Can it get better in the future? Sure, I'll wait.

[spwa4]

1) the hallucination problem is known, and thus in the middle of the crosshairs of half the AI researchers in existence

2) you're assuming you know all Bruce Lee facts, which is the only way you'll distinguish true from false, and the only way you'll be able to correctly identify hallucinations. This is obviously not the case. AI models will get to this point. You won't.

The point will come, and for any reasonable person has long since passed, that any AI knows so many Bruce Lee facts they know 10x more of them than any individual does. And they can just keep writing articles leaving out different subsets of those facts and you will never know

3) everyone actually involved in writing these articles, including writers, publishers, advertisers, ... all have their incentives pointing the same way: towards deceiving you about this, and even towards not caring about it when they get caught.