"AI" tools can be valuable. I often use these tools to help me in my work.
The emphasis is on 'tools' and 'help'.
I don't want Grammarly to do my writing FOR me, just to help me improve it. Adobe Illustrator isn't for creating my designs, it is what I use to help me realize my designs.
Recently I was made aware of one bot that is pumping out rubbish into Hive a "couple hundred times a day".
These ai comments can post almost 10,000 comments a day.
A quantity great enough that it is a significant percentage of what our metrics tools think is user activity and engagement.
My post isn't about any individual, any project, any particular fund.
It's a question about where we draw the line and how we measure success as a community.
We are putting community funds into trying to attract new, enthusiastic people to Hive, but what is the point if they just see GPT-generated automation slop when they get here?
If I wanted an AI to tell me a story, why would I pay attention to your copy and paste when I could just go and ask the same tool you copied the answer from?
John Mueller on Blue Sky shared an interesting post with the following observation:
AI is creating a generation of illiterate SEOs? ... and probably many other computer-based / knowledge-based / experience-based roles.
As we have seen a LOT on Hive, people are using AI instead of doing work and instead of thinking. Unlike past "industrial revolutions", instead of adding to our abilities, instead of making us able to do things we could not before, overwhelmingly it is being used to create fake slop that passes a first view as being legit.
It's like we are being given more and more "food substitute" instead of actual nutrition, and people are applauding because it means the folks with talent, education, experience, skills, and imagination are having their wages cut out of the market.
"AI" is creating more and more three-times-regurgitated junk that appears factual until you ask it about something you are knowledgeable about.
"AI" is "generating" "art" based on actual artists work, but without the actual artists being able to pay rent.
My hope is eventually at least it will create high paying jobs for people who have real knowledge and skills to fix the AI poop.
The linked article is about how people who habitually use "AI" find their own faculties declining.
I stared at my terminal facing those red error messages that I hate to see. An AWS error glared back at me. I didn’t want to figure it out without AI’s help.
After 12 years of coding, I’d somehow become worse at my own craft. And this isn’t hyperbole—this is the new reality for software developers.
We saw this coming. How many of us now reach for IMDB a lot quicker than we used to when we can't remember the name of an actor in something we are watching?
Who knows someone who we can tell can no longer write legibly without autocorrect?
That is a problem, but combined with the earlier problem of the "AI" not even being accurate, that creates a third, bigger problem.
The more we are put in a position to consume AI slop, the more people will opt out of consuming it. Without being able to make a living creating, people will have to find other ways to make a living.
How many people enjoy reading, viewing, or listening to art, content, entertainment, that has had zero human input apart from the vast plagiarism database used to train the so-called AI?
Guess we are going to find out ...
I try to avoid voting on anything that I think is generated as I want to support human efforts, but it may be a losing battle as the bots improve. I just don't think they add that much value.
Yup I’m pretty sure this entire blockchain was inspired by the idea of rewarding people’s efforts. Otherwise we’d just be mining … 😬
Indeed. I believe Hive is for people to interact with people.
Even when I am at my most driven to produce the largest amounts of content, I would not be able to spam the way AI bots do.
It is definitely something that hurts the community.
Hurts the current community and will put off anyone joining ... good way to destroy it actually
I've been seeing a few comment that may seem legit but is actually written by AI. It's really sad to see how it unfolds and just because they want to up their engagement, they uses AI to write their comment. Sorry to say but it sounds like pretty much brain dead and this isn't something I expected of this space. But like @nathen007 pointed out too, it might be too late now.
Great post, but I fear too late. The authenticity of Hive seems to have been lost to vast waves of AI spam. Just take a look at inleo threads and the bot generated AI summaries, all to make it look like traffic is being generated. It's a scam fest and it's sad. For a while, Hive was so much more.
I don't think what is on threads is as visible to a new user coming to hive though (well, except those coming through Leo perhaps). The limited amount of good content is a bigger hindrance than the preponderance of AI content in thread comment containers. It's always been a chicken and the egg problem though. How do you get more good content without more users and how do you get more users without more good content?
I know it's been said before but rather than, for example, sponsoring a driver/car we could give bonus rewards to top actual content, and even sponsor content that we'd like to see created?
It's unoriginal but it's how many content platforms get content creators to move in and create ...
We'd obviously need to be wary of 10000 votes all from the same IP address range/etc 😬
It's so sad because the incentives are MEANT to create more original content, discussion, engagement, and instead people are looking at it as "forget eggs, how quickly can we carve up the chicken?"