I worked in machine learning for over ten years during my banking career. Starting in 2016, I wrote novels and stories about artificial intelligence. These books were published in Turkey and reached science fiction enthusiasts. Therefore, I had the opportunity to think and work on the subject's theoretical and practical aspects.
In my opinion, we should not consider whether the content is produced by artificial intelligence or human beings as a criterion. We should evaluate the content produced according to its quality. Because after a while, we will not be able to understand whether a post was produced by artificial intelligence or by a human. The use of artificial intelligence devalues the efforts of content creators, but this is an inevitable process. Bans may delay the issue for a while, but if AI does the job better, we should let it do it.
On the other hand, the content produced by artificial intelligence is not usable in its current form. Those who have in-depth knowledge of the content of the content detect any inaccuracies in the content produced by artificial intelligence. Also, how it works makes it difficult for AI to list the resources it benefits from.
The content produced by artificial intelligence is not much different from automatically generated statistical reports. The curation process of these reports was also controversial. Considering that creating and maintaining these reports takes resources, I think they deserve an upvote.
How can we describe the content produced by artificial intelligence? Various stages of the process may be automated. Will we accept ninety percent automated content but reject completely auto-generated content?
I think we should give upvotes to the content produced by artificial intelligence in proportion to the value it creates. However, we need to consider some ethical codes here. If the content is produced by artificial intelligence, we should know it. Of course, we can downvote if the person using artificial intelligence tries to convince us that he/she produced the content manually. Just like in the images, showing the artificial intelligence algorithm as a source would be appropriate.
On the other hand, as Hive curators, we may encourage content creators to use artificial intelligence tools because some of the best content is produced by human-machine collaboration. Newly developed artificial intelligence tools allow us to access information more efficiently than search engines. We can use artificial intelligence for general information and enrich the content by adding personal comments.
Note: I wrote all the sentences in this comment manually :)
On top of this, there is the probability of false positives and false negatives. It is best to focus on the value of the article itself. The AI content is full of flaws (especially when it comes to factual accuracy). If one type of content becomes easily made by AI, the overall value of that content itself will go down.
This could lead to make personal content and personal style more valuable and rare. The best response to technology is adopting to it instead of becoming mindless drones or overly conservative. Even if HIVE keeps AI, away, rest of the internet will be flooded by AI content. The best thing to do is focus on the type of content AI cannot produce right now effectively.
It will be an arms race and I am ready for it.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta