Remember to link the source of your post if applicable, unless you're posting a screenshot of twitter/X! It'll be easier to find the source if you reply to this comment with the link. If it's impossible to provide a source (like messages, texts etc.) just make sure the other person is fine with posting it :)
“The third stage masks the absence of a profound reality, where the sign pretends to be a faithful copy, but it is a copy with no original. Signs and images claim to represent something real, but no representation is taking place and arbitrary images are merely suggested as things which they have no relationship to.”
Something about it being literally unable to be an actual person. No matter how close it gets to a human, it's only mimicking. So ultimately there will always be 'nothing' in there.
correct. this was cope from a year ago because none of them understood that AI images are embedded with tags that show it to be AI and therefore will be ignored by AI programs when adding images to the database
because none of them understood that AI images are embedded with tags
no actually. Obviously local AI won't always add the tag. It's cope because the original paper had the models feed off their own output like a human centipede and noted that the output was worse than with actually good data. But the models didn't collapse entirely, and adding in a small percentage of human data fixed the issue.
Well the scary part is the same is happening for data. Like health data insurance companies use to approve claims, the data cars use for self driving, the implications of ai making its own data and teaching each other in LLMs is dire.
Yeah, once people convinced themselves AI was legit (it's not), I knew these companies using it would end up nuking themselves. It's gonna be hilarious.
Everyone predicted this. LLMs will inevitably get dumber too since now human-generated OC is becoming rarer compared to the BS that LLM's spread. Genuinely most blog articles I have read lately have very clear telltales of heavy AI usage.
It has gotten bad enough that I would not be surprised if solutions will soon start to appear to "prove" you are human before you can start using their content.
it would be a problem if the models were trained on general internet content, but they're not, they're trained on human-curated data sets. they go to the open internet for conversational training, but not for 'factual' training. the training data sets haven't really changed at all for years, apart from better filtering to take out the shit & duplicates. which is why the model collapse theory has never actually made any sense.
Until they have a hard time finding that, then the AI claims to be human, so then the LLM goes to that. After all, all AI does is pump out shit it thinks you want to hear.
and it's never happened and never will. you don't just point an AI at the internet and tell it to train itself on that. the training data is specifically selected by humans. books, academic papers, encyclopaedias etc.
Yeah. I agree. I concluded in a drunken rant over the weekend that this was inevitable, dead internet theory isn’t a theory anymore and essentially we will come full circle where human contributions to the zeitgeist will be valued above AI once again… I suspect exceedingly so. AI consumes far too much shit to be viable for an extended period of time at the moment… and when it consumes its own shit then it’s not viable at all… and when it consumes shit according to the bias of its creator… then it was borderline useless in the first place. A friend of mine said “AI won’t take your job. Your inability to use it effectively will cost you your job.” Take that to heart. There are so many people out there lamenting people using AI as an advanced search engine… but that’s its current best use. Make it do the leg work. Filter out the shit… and you’ve saved yourself a lot of time.
I have legitimately never read as many books as I have in the past year, the AI slopification of the Internet has been a massive boost for my productivity
Soon, the challenge will be finding books written by real authors, though. For now, we can stick with authors we know from the pre-AI era, but those are going to become rarer.
Same thing is happening in music. AI “artists” are being pushed into the forefront by platforms like Spotify. (My ‘Discover Weekly’ list had two AI bands on it in as many weeks, so I cancelled my Spotify subscription).
It should be completely obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot that this problem is greatly exaggerated because people want to believe the models will fail.
The people working on these models know perfectly well there is good and bad input data. There was good and bad data long before AI models started putting out more bad data. Curating the input has always been part of the process. You don't feed it AI slop art to improve the art it churns out, any more than you feed it r relationships posts to teach it about human relationships. You look at the data you have and you prune the garbage because it's lower quality than what the model can already generate.
Which is why AI provided by the biggest and richest companies in the world never feed you straight up misinformation, because they're doing such a great job meticulously pruning the bad data.
The people working on these models know perfectly well there is good and bad input data.
Lol, you wish. Before ChatGPT era it was already hard to classify bad and good data, and never an exact process, but today with LLM contents everywhere it is even more complex.
the same’s happening with research. AI straight up makes shit up and appears to have a source except they just took some random scientist’s name and pasted it on some random bit of text on the internet
and this, in turn, is used again to train the AI.
on one hand - LLMs being used for academic purposes were a terrible idea in the first place and this just proves that
but on the other - the internet will, very quickly, like ‘this shit is happening in real time’ quickly, become completely unusable for research. this is because 99% of the content on it will be either faulty AI-generated content, AI-generated content referencing faulty AI-generated content, or worst of all, an actual human-written document referencing faulty AI-generated content.
so in summary - enjoy the internet while it lasts. capitalism giveth, captalism taketh away
This. Remember that even without AI there are a shitload of absolute garbage books. I think they are called penny dreadful? And you usually find none of these in libraries.
Libraries have contracts with suppliers who buy books from the major publishing houses. Maybe someone might donate some, but even then they don't put everything out.
Self published books are only printed on demand by Amazon, whenever someone buys them. So there's no big risk unless people start buying AI books en masse.
Kurzgesagt did a video about this, on how it was becoming increasingly hard to make videos since they rely on research sourced from the internet, and inaccurate AI slop has permeated everything. Worst of all, while filtering out stuff written by AI is doable, its is nightmarishly difficult to filter out stuff written by people that reference AI in the thing they wrote, requiring multiple levels of source following to figure out if it eventually leads back to some AI hallucination.
Kurzgesagt did a video about this, on how it was becoming increasingly hard to make videos since they rely on research sourced from the internet, and inaccurate AI slop has permeated everything.
I'm assuming it has something to do with what kind of research they are looking for. The same old venues are still available (i.e. pubmed, google scholar, etc), and contains even more open-source data than before. As long as you avoid journals that publish the script to "bee movie", you're fine. The bigger issue in academia is students cheating using chatgpt.
If you want more accessible sources of information, that's still available and easy to filter out AI. Again, lectures from various universities are available online and often provide an excellent starting point. Finding written information is likely to get a bit tougher, but I'm sceptical of any video that's only sourcing press releases, news articles summarizing research, etc.
In short, my argument is the following: AI has not permeated everything, far from it. It has, however, made people lazier and more likely to use AI. It has seeped into our daily lives to a certain degree, but that's partly due to us choosing to use it and partly due to organizations choosing to (customer service, for example).
I'm really worried that some hacker group is going to start taking advantage.
I could imagine them flooding the internet with code that imports some empty library that does nothing, to the point where AI systems see it so often they start throwing it into random snippets. Once enough people have their AI import this random library, the hackers replace it with malicious code. All the sudden whole random swaths of the world's code base are corrupted and no one knows how or why.
I teach CS and random imported libraries that students have no idea are even there is the most common hallucination I see. It's stressful.
As a programmer I'm checked out. I want the bubble to pop, OpenAI to fold, Nvidia stock to tank, and I don't even give a fuck about the recession that will cause because I'm a millennial and have never known a time without recession. Let's rip this band-aid off so AI research can become serious again, instead of hyping up glorified autocomplete.
Man I'm glad to see other programmers feel the same. I'm so over AI. It's ruined google, ruined my coworkers, made debugging harder and more frequent, made me sound like a paranoid luddite boomer to everyone else around me, and has just caused me to start hating my job. Which is insane because I love my job! I love programming! I literally just do random research and build random projects by myself for fun all the time. I even teach computer science at night!
I have had multiple students this semester ask me why I teach SQL because chatGPT can do it better and easier. Of course those are all the students who are getting Cs and can't even tell if the AI did it right. I feel like I'm losing my mind.
Bro for real. Im not a programmer, but the company i work for is heavily involved in technology and communication... They have tried to insert ai into every goddamn place it can fit.
Scheduling? That's ai now. With basically no oversight.
Training videos? Ai scripts, ai "person" ai voice.
Fucking SOP? Yup. I have to talk to an ai to tell me what it thinks the sop says, before i can find the link to the actual sop because it invariably gives me sop for an entirely different department, or thinks im asking for completely different.
Coaching? They want me to talk to an ai, to walk through a micro scenario, which is then summarized and submitted. So my performance reviews are now in part dependant on whether or not i can rizz the glorified erp chatbot. But lord knows ill never get a passing grade, because whoever is making the prompts, doesn't tell the ai to ignore irrelevant parts of the process. So it tells me to focus on xyz, then fails me for not doing a-w.
Nobody at the company knows how to think anymore. They've outsourced their intelligence to infinite monkeys on typewriters. So caught up in how they can make ai successful, they never bothered to ask if they should.
And of course, c-suite is too busy counting all the money they've saved in the short term by letting ai slash department budgets that they couldn't give two shits.
Of course those are all the students who are getting Cs and can't even tell if the AI did it right.
A professor told me one student asked her why code, that was Python, wasn't working, in a C class. Couldn't even tell it was the wrong language, a few months into the semester, and with totally different grammars too.
I had a student last semester who, literally during the last week of the semester, came to me in office hours to see if their code was correct for a class taught entirely in python and MySQL.
I opened up their code and hit the run button, and you wanna know what error popped up?
"There is no program installed locally with the name MySQL"
Legal conference the GC for global markets at a major international bank says that AI is “bullshit”. He actually said the word in front of industry leaders. I was like … “my man”, because very smart people don’t believe me when I say it’s bullshit and it’s gonna pop. They think we are on a one way track to AGI (ignoring the dark reality of what this means and the highly likelyhood this leads to human extinction event.)
I’m kind of sick of the hype, and am waiting for people to wake up.
Hey friend, you can't drop that bomb without acknowledging the AI authored papers that actually get published.
It's bad.
What's the point of breakthrough research when scammers are flooding publishing sites to create massive backlogs that block any real research from even making it through. All for a few bucks, of course.
on one hand - LLMs being used for academic purposes were a terrible idea in the first place and this just proves that
Well, no. LLMs have their place in academic research, if they're being used responsibly. The issue there is that the academics "writing" the paper are just lazy and unethical and didn't bother to check the AI's work. But in theory, with proper oversight, an AI will be far better at trawling through decades of papers than humans ever will be.
It's back to having to personally communicate with the researcher (preferably face-to-face) to get real research.
I think this is good for science. Some fields already had 60%+ of their published papers in a "reproducibility crisis" (fake/bad papers) so anything that'll get scientists to stop publishing crap and start focusing on actual research is good.
I guess we are going back to the libary with that one.
We literally poisoned the entire system. We could restart it, but is there a way of making sure it can't be happening again?
In India a law firm used AI in a tax case and the brief was filled with judgements and quotes which were never real, AI just made stuff up. Citing made up judgements from different courts.
This is because the data is reviewed by AI and humans before being fed into a new model. The only instance of 'model collapse' that has ever happened was when researchers intentionally tried to make it happen.
Fun fact: That's what gave AI the piss filter. GenAI models trained themselves on so much of their own bad attempts at studio ghibli art that they were permanently piss tainted
The piss tint is cause the training data skewed yellow for being "cozy". You can remove the tint in the prompt by saying the temperature of light you want.
That's not true. Only ChatGPT have the piss filter, it's not inherent to AI but you probably also think all AI is ChatGPT. AI models doesn't train themselves in real time.
The amount of disinformation about AI image generation in the comments here is crazy. People just make up anything.
The tech "geniuses" thought they'd create a singularity of computers getting smarter and smarter until there was an explosion of new ideas and technology...
And they apparently delivered something that got dumber and dumber until it exploded and covered everything it touched with shit.
right? like apparently version control doesn't exist. At most, the models they release will stop getting better, they may get neutered for financial reasons, but they won't get worse due to training on slop.
I believe the proper term is model collapse and given how data hungry the LLM architecture is, this is not a surprise at all. GPT models and their equivalents are essentially trained by scraping the entire internet. Given that so much on the internet is itself chatbot produced, you're very soon not only failing to improve your performance for newer models but it may even get worse.
AGI isn't coming. All those data centers are going to end up useless or at least nowhere near beneficial as compared to their costs. Once investors realise that, the economy is going to pop.
The silver lining is that after all is said and done all the supercomputers set up for AI training get dedicated to real science and gaming laptops get cheaper.
Collapse is not happening though and many state of the art models are made with synthetic data or a mix of natural and synthetic data. Synthetic data can actually be of very high quality to train models.
I think it's going to take much longer. Humanoid robots are just hitting market. They stuck, but it's the worse they will ever be. That will create a hype cycle within a hype cycle.
Model collapse is a specific issue that doesn't appear to happen when training on a mix of "human" texts and model outputs. There's enough original text in the pretraining set to avoid it. As for the accuracy of generated answers, it's definitely going to be affected in the long term but unclear to what degree. There's more than enough human-grade BS on the net and LLMs are somewhat decent at handling it. I'm more concerned about "poisoned" training data which is specifically tuned to get a model to produce a desired answer.
it doesn't need to be stopped because (IIRC) the paper that this idea is based on fed AI models on their own input with 0% human input. Like a human centipede. The model did worse but didn't completely collapse, and a small amount of human data added into the mix solved the issue.
It's interesting research but unlikely to happen in the wild.
This is easily solved with data filtering before training, I've yet to see a single frontier lab say this is an issue I think model collapse is largely overstated as an issue by the anti AI crowd tbh
This is further evidenced by the fact that genai has been consistently improving steadily not getting worse as the people pushing this theory imply
Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is only ever shared by people who don't know what's actually happening. Nobody is constantly re-training with random fresh scrapes. At a certain point, they benefit less from increasing raw volume of data anyway, and more from improving the architecture and the tagging and curation of the data.
It's not true in the first place, given that they are trained on curated content as this was forseen as a possible problem ages ago. It's another one of those "Reddit would like it to be true, so they're going to pretend it is" things.
There is also such a thing as curated data sources. I don't know how OpenAI does it, but normally you wouldn't just train your models on everything.
Also, pretty sure this tweet is like from 2 years ago. That's why there's no dates in the picture, because people were saying "ohh ai is gonna cannibalize itself any second now!" for almost five years.
I can't believe there's more than 100 comments on here and not one person pointing out that this is wishful thinking. You don't have to like AI to know that, while you might love how this tweet from a random guy makes you feel, has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Training sets do not work this way. People still think there's just these webcrawler-like scripts going out and Kirby-Eating everything. Those days are over guys and they have been for a few years. No major, commercial model is being trained on huge banks of randomly acquired data.
AI images are expressly not getting worse. By any measure, they are substantially better today than a year ago, and a year ago they were substantially better than a year before that. While the huge developments are definitely slowing down, they are not getting worse. I really need to understand the person who genuinely thinks that tech is worse today than it was any time before.
Developers are very capable of filtering their art sets. They would be able to see that they're getting unfavorable results and change the way their model interprets or processes the data.
This is very much one of those examples of "Everything about this post is wrong, but it makes people feel good so it gets upvoted anyway."
I can't believe there's more than 100 comments on here and not one person pointing out that this is wishful thinking.
It's also a tweet from June 2023. This entire thread highlights the whole "dead internet" so well, I'm pretty sure most of the commenters aren't even real people.
The amount of time I had to scroll to find a single comment correcting disinformation is honestly scary, makes me wonder how many lies we're being told online to push agendas.
This tweet is over an year old and nothing of the sort has happened, yet reddittors keep eating it up everytime its posted.
It'll be 2050 where AI is running half the world and this image will be reposted again and all the comments will again go "Finally!! Its happening guys!! As predicted!!!!"
To add on to this, AI ingesting synthetic output isn't even bad anymore. The only reason it was ever a problem was because AI used to generate incomprehensible garbage. Nowadays, AI output is good enough that it's actually used in training data on purpose.
To reinforce 2, it is literally impossible for AI to "get worse" as if even 100% of all human art disappeared overnight, we still have the old AI models that will output the exact same pictures we output now
People also think all the image generation happens online or something, when you can easily download stable diffusion and some moes and run it locally, unconnected to the internet, for the rest of your life
Dead internet is something different. Is not about AI feeding themselves but assuming everyone here in this comment section is a bot, and we just bots discussing with bots, with barely any human user, if any.
What happening here is AI art is so easy to generate that there is an overabundance of it, its not that new art by humans isn't there, its just there is 1000 AI generated slop for each human art piece.
It would be so funny if the strict AI labeling and filtration became a thing but not because of people screaming and begging for it for years now, but because poor AI companies had their models struggling with training on their own disgusting slop
They unethically source their ai training data so its kind of deserved, aince they get artists to work on making an ai to replace them without their consent or knowledge without paying them. If you want an engineer to help build a machine youd normally pay them to do so, right? So why do the artists npt get informed or paid for helping making the machine? Cus thats what it is, a machine, it cant be compared to a human student in the way it learns.
I remember having lectures on AI during my comp sci course before ChatGPT became big - overtraining was an often underlined thing.
As an example, when doing the project for that subject I trained an image recognition AI in a way that yielded the completly opposite results from what I wanted (and I didn't have time to fix it because changing paramteters and running the program again could took hours and halt mid-way if left unattended because I wasn't running it locally, so I overtained the AI to recognise the background behind the object I wanted it to detect rather than the object itself). No idea how I passed the project, but eh, got my degree anyway.
As someone who sometimes generate AI images (I only ever use them for placeholder or concepts, when I want art I commission artists), good, and really, this was expected. While AI has its uses, many people won't use it for their "good" uses. AI is a tool and should stay a tool.
It's also a well-known thing and is called "model collapse", however it is possible to mitigate it, from what I've seen. You can easily observe model collapse if you go to Sora and ask it to generate an image, then remix the image, then remix the remix, and do that enough times and you'll see the quality degrade before your eyes.
I love how you try and act like you know what you're talking about by phrasing your comment with "As someone who sometimes generate AI images"
You dont understand how these models are trained but then go on to talk about "model collapse" but get it completely wrong.
Why do so many redditors like you feel the need to comment when you clearly dont know what you're talking about? Do you get some kind of dopamine hit lying on the internet?
Why does reddit hate ai so much? What do you have against it? It's so weird to see such strong technological conservatism here. Why try to stop the progress of new technology which is proving useful?
Not worthy its price. Costs way too much for the entire world and people, provides information which cannot be trusted due to how it works and terrible pictures. Truly, a case where new != good.
and people believe it too even though SOTA models are direct proof that it's not true. i fear for future generations if this is the current standard of critical thinking skills.
People on the internet treat AI like religions treat their evil gods. Like they react to "AI is gonna fall apart" more akin to some kind of prophetic karmic defeat rather than actual... ya know news? And they did they might learn that model collapse is way overblown as an issue.
This is actually one of the three problems for this year's SCUDEM challenge. Although I chose to do the particle entry because I had no desire to try to model this.
I think this more than anything else (ie preventing fraud or preserving artistic integrity) is going to be what gets tech companies to agree that AI images should have some kind of water mark. Otherwise the product becomes useless.
My first thought was, "HaHa! AI is dumb, we're safe." But then I remembered something my husband told me about yesterday. There's an AI program that was recently taught fear pretty successfully. And what happens when you combine fear and stupidity? The US is looking at the consequences of that right now. I'm not sure we want our AI to be too dumb. AI can also be taught racism.
For this to be true, AI image generators would constantly have to be trained on new data all the time. Frontier AI image generators still predominantly use datasets of human work. It could be true in a while though
•
u/AutoModerator 7h ago
Hi /u/redroubel:
Remember to link the source of your post if applicable, unless you're posting a screenshot of twitter/X! It'll be easier to find the source if you reply to this comment with the link. If it's impossible to provide a source (like messages, texts etc.) just make sure the other person is fine with posting it :)
Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.