I love the Memento explanation, and I'm stealing it. I know the improved learning myth stuck with me for a while for some reason, until I learned more about how these suckas work.
I have a good working theory on why this is happening:
"To this day, the meme continues to gain traction in Facebook groups and Reddit threads. Try searching for “AI accepting the job” on Twitter / X and see what pops up."
I think most folks (let's be real - almost everyone in the world) is in the camp of never trying any image generators, so they only learn about how messed up these things are in memes. Memes take a while to be created and circulate to groups that aren't already plugged in (and the groups that are plugged in know damn well that AGI can make hands today, thank the gods).
Do I get a Noble (sic) prize for discovering this reason or what?
"We’ve been exposed to ChatGPT for over a year, so we know what generic AI writing sounds like. Hell, 79.67% of content on LinkedIn is probably just ChatGPT by now."
100% It's everywhere including the responses. LI also just released a 'rewrite with AI' option that will help make our post even better (read like AI)
Simplest way I've found to catch someone using ChatGPT:
"Hey, I read your ticket. It seems really generic and not very actionable. Did you have ChatGPT write some of it?"
"Yes. Sorry."
"I need you to rewrite it with specific steps you're going to take. I don't even care if you get help from ChatGPT but you'll have to check it yourself to see if it makes sense."
That was a real conversation. Yes, someone who is really determined to cheat can find a way to make it look good. I would have been fine with that. But most people are too stupid and/or lazy to go to that trouble and the result is usually obvious.
I think the fuss of AI detectors and worrying that writers are using AI is, at the core, not a new problem. The problem of plagiarism or conmen publishing works that aren’t theirs has been around long before LLMs.
Sure, detecters keep people honest and may give you a sense of peace that what you’re reading was written by a human, but I think it’s a trivial issue.
What we hope for is that companies who employ writers do their diligence to make sure their writers are honest and doing their own work. But from what I can tell, even if they don’t, eventually these charlatans get found out and don’t last the scrutiny of the masses. They may make a lot of money in the short term, but long term people conning the system get found out and fall off pretty quickly.
I for one, perhaps naively, don’t see the AI generated text or images being a bigger problem than plagiarism has always been.
Good writeup. I did want to do a "well, actually" and say that while the LLMs themselves aren't learning from user conversations, it's likely that LLM-enabled products are, in a roundabout way. The best practice for integrating an LLM also involves monitoring and observing user behavior (or at least asking "was this response good?"), and the best engineering teams are likely sifting through those metrics and using them to test better prompts, and eventually fine-tune more tailored models for their use case.
Your point still stands, but "AI for X" products might actually be getting smarter!
I linked to this in my own weekly newsletter, so hopefully you get some love from it. Here's what I said...
"In my public talks, one of my favourite things to do is to shoot down myths about AI. It's not only fun to do, for me and the audience, but it's a surprisingly powerful first step in raising levels of AI education and literacy. That's why I loved the article below so much. Written by one of the easiest-to-understand, effective and funny AI commentators I know, you'll get a few chuckles out of this one... "
I love the Memento explanation, and I'm stealing it. I know the improved learning myth stuck with me for a while for some reason, until I learned more about how these suckas work.
I have a good working theory on why this is happening:
"To this day, the meme continues to gain traction in Facebook groups and Reddit threads. Try searching for “AI accepting the job” on Twitter / X and see what pops up."
I think most folks (let's be real - almost everyone in the world) is in the camp of never trying any image generators, so they only learn about how messed up these things are in memes. Memes take a while to be created and circulate to groups that aren't already plugged in (and the groups that are plugged in know damn well that AGI can make hands today, thank the gods).
Do I get a Noble (sic) prize for discovering this reason or what?
"We’ve been exposed to ChatGPT for over a year, so we know what generic AI writing sounds like. Hell, 79.67% of content on LinkedIn is probably just ChatGPT by now."
100% It's everywhere including the responses. LI also just released a 'rewrite with AI' option that will help make our post even better (read like AI)
Simplest way I've found to catch someone using ChatGPT:
"Hey, I read your ticket. It seems really generic and not very actionable. Did you have ChatGPT write some of it?"
"Yes. Sorry."
"I need you to rewrite it with specific steps you're going to take. I don't even care if you get help from ChatGPT but you'll have to check it yourself to see if it makes sense."
That was a real conversation. Yes, someone who is really determined to cheat can find a way to make it look good. I would have been fine with that. But most people are too stupid and/or lazy to go to that trouble and the result is usually obvious.
I think the fuss of AI detectors and worrying that writers are using AI is, at the core, not a new problem. The problem of plagiarism or conmen publishing works that aren’t theirs has been around long before LLMs.
Sure, detecters keep people honest and may give you a sense of peace that what you’re reading was written by a human, but I think it’s a trivial issue.
What we hope for is that companies who employ writers do their diligence to make sure their writers are honest and doing their own work. But from what I can tell, even if they don’t, eventually these charlatans get found out and don’t last the scrutiny of the masses. They may make a lot of money in the short term, but long term people conning the system get found out and fall off pretty quickly.
I for one, perhaps naively, don’t see the AI generated text or images being a bigger problem than plagiarism has always been.
Good writeup. I did want to do a "well, actually" and say that while the LLMs themselves aren't learning from user conversations, it's likely that LLM-enabled products are, in a roundabout way. The best practice for integrating an LLM also involves monitoring and observing user behavior (or at least asking "was this response good?"), and the best engineering teams are likely sifting through those metrics and using them to test better prompts, and eventually fine-tune more tailored models for their use case.
Your point still stands, but "AI for X" products might actually be getting smarter!
I’m going to get a tattoo of RLHF because i know i will forget this
What about reinforcement learning or RLHF or arrrellHeffff?
Really enjoyed this Daniel, as always!
I linked to this in my own weekly newsletter, so hopefully you get some love from it. Here's what I said...
"In my public talks, one of my favourite things to do is to shoot down myths about AI. It's not only fun to do, for me and the audience, but it's a surprisingly powerful first step in raising levels of AI education and literacy. That's why I loved the article below so much. Written by one of the easiest-to-understand, effective and funny AI commentators I know, you'll get a few chuckles out of this one... "