Throwing Another Log on the AI Bonfire!

in Silver Bloggerslast year

So, the hot topic of the moment is AI (Artificial Intelligence), and using AI to create art and web content in general; what does it mean? Should it be allowed? Should it be allowed, on Hive? Should it be clearly marked as what it is? What value does it have? Is AI going to render humans irrelevant in the creation of content?

0017-Pink.jpg

Before we Start — TL;DR:

  • AI is already embedded in our daily lives.
  • Does AI affect the "utility value" of something?
  • Is AI really the issue?
  • Or is it actually Truth in Labeling we care about?
  • Deception is a bigger and more toxic issue than AI

OK, Onwards!

We find ourselves asking a lot of seemingly relevant questions while perhaps skipping over some of the relatively obvious but at the same time overlooked questions.

For most people, I expect any kind of final verdict an AI is still out with the jury. And yet? We already frequently interact with AI and one form or another.

Heck, let me stick my neck out here, and admit that this post was created "partially using AI."

WHAT????

0384-Sunflash.JPG

I say that, because whereas everything in this post was definitely the result of my own original thoughts, HOWEVER, the words as you see them on this page are partly the result of speech-to-text technology… and isn't that just another form of AI? Let's consider:

The voice recognition software gradually becomes more adept at recognizing my voice, my word choice patterns, and the odd expressions I use, as a result of which there are fewer and fewer typos I have to fix at the end. So, technically speaking, I used AI to create this post. There's machine learning involved, here.

Yes, I know, that's not exactly what we're talking about here.

I'm just starting off this diatribe with that little "admission" to point out that the lines are typically more blurred than we think.

0447-Strawflower.jpg

Let Me Offer You Another Example:

Not so long ago, @cosmictriage created her own deck of tarot cards. For lack of a better term, I would characterize the project has ”AI assisted:”

She started with some sketches and photographs of her own creation, used Night Café to give them a dreamlike quality using AI according to a very specific rule set specified by her, and then spent hours and hours tweaking that result into what she finally wanted, digitally — but essentially ”by hand.”

Again, the lines are blurred.

Was AI involved? Definitely! But the AI was a tool, much as a PhotoShop "brush" is simply a tool for a graphic artist.

0010-Camellia.jpg

What Are We REALLY Debating?

As I contemplate the AI debate, I find that the most fundamental question that comes to my mind is "what is your intention?" What are we doing? What is it we want the end result to be?

It all brings to mind discussions we had back on ”Hive 1.0” in which we were debating whether the repository of information that was being distributed and accumulated through our blogs was contributing to the ”Internet of information” or the ”Internet of PEOPLE.”

Again: What is your intention?

It's a question that's perhaps very difficult to answer in a global sense because it ultimately boils down to the interest of the individual. And even that can be a moving target.

What exactly is it that AI does? What does it provide? What does it add or subtract?

0441-StJohns.JPG

If my intention is to find instructions on how to replace a certain engine part on my 1997 Nissan, I would definitely like to be assisted by AI which is able to collect an aggregation of information about replacing that particular part on the 1997 Nissan. In that instance I'm looking for information. The human factor is somewhat secondary.

HOWEVER, AI can't describe the feeling of watching your kid play soccer. AI can't describe what it's like to hold and pet an adorable kitten. AI can't describe the texture of a rock you're sitting on at the beach. AI doesn't know what it feels like to make the first sale for your new business. AI can't describe the flavor of a perfect cup of cocoa.

Some might protest this particular line of thinking since AI has access to ALL information, but let's consider the essentail fact is that what AI does is gather aggregate of external experiences and present a plausible summary of what any one of those feelings might be. However none of those examples would be described through direct experience.

0598-PurpleColumbine.JPG

It's Personal!

And so, we come back to our personal intentions and preference. Speaking only for myself, the primary reason I blog is for the human content rather than the informational content. I care more about people's stories and *experiences than about numbers on a page.

@edicted eloquently presented a perspective of humans from the self-serving capitalistic angle, positing (among many other things) that we ultimately just care about what we want, at the best possible "price." Either AI adds value, or it doesn't.

I neither agree nor disagree strongly, but I find myself wanting characterize the underlying idea that we're ultimately each driven by ”whatever it takes,” to have and maintain our personal sense of reality. Much of human experience will show us that it's an approach that leads to a giant free-for-all that quickly decays into little more than chaos… and we end up with a situation where nobody wins.

0212-Forsythia.jpg

AI... a Return to the Land of Bid Bots?

I've seen a few people talk about AI in the same context as the issue we had with bid bots in the past.

In a sense I'm in alignment with that because it closes in on an important issue: perhaps what we're really looking at isn't so much to do with effort or money or who's trying to beat the system… as it is to do with the unpleasant swampland between various forms of deception and openly transparent honesty.

Consider, for example, that when something shows up at the top of your Twitter or Facebook feed much of the time your initial interest and curiosity that it could be something really interesting is substantially tempered by the fact that there is a small note next to it that says ”promoted content.”

I have no issue with promoted content, and I also had little issue with bid bots, BUT I take considerable issue with the basic reality that promoted content that is not labeled as such essentially amounts to a deception.

0330-LacyMaple.jpg

"Truth in Labeling"

When the whole bid bot debate originally broke out, and people were up in arms over the fact that some elements of the community were effectively "buying their way into the trending feed" the parallel that always came to mind was that of an author who publishes a book and then creates the false illusion that it's a Best Seller by going to every bookstore they can find and buying 100 copies of their own book.

It's basically a deception.

Publishing blog content created by an AI chatbot and not letting people know that it was created by an AI chatbot is also a form of deception. That's where we get into the whole issue of whether something borders on the edge of becoming a scam.

Before you protest too loudly... consider whether you'd really buy that t-bone steak if it were actually synthesized from cricket protein in a factory, but not labeled as such?

0256-LilacsSun.jpg

”But does it add VALUE?”

And so we uncork another of the much discussed pet topics of Hivelandia: Value and Quality Content.

Personally, I am not — and generally haven't been — a big fan of the concept of ”quality content.”

For starters, it is very subjective... but moreover, I can't help but think back to my college days (40 years ago - yikes) and creative writing courses in which fairly wise creative writing professors with lifelong authoring and publishing experience would point out that if you go to your local bookstore, less than 2% of what is on the shelves actually constitutes ”literature quality” writing.

Everything else is basically Pulp. But it's popular pulp; it's the pulp people want to read; it's the pulp people actually pick up and take to the cash register and then lay on the beach during their vacation and read.

”Does it add VALUE?” has always been a far more relevant question for me.

So does AI add value?

0441-PinkRose.JPG

The Sourcing Requirement...

Again, isn't that a highly individualized and subjective question?

Which brings me full circle back to what I brought up earlier: perhaps this isn't so much an issue of "AI" or "not AI," as it is an issue of ”truth in labeling.” In most cases, I don't give a flip how you came about your content, but I want to know where you came about it: out of your brain, or our of a machine.

Is this your personal experience? Or is it your research project? Or did you actually have nothing to do with the creation of it?

We're expected to credit, label and source images/illustrations, so why would the content, itself, be subject to any different requirements?

0362-RedLeaves.JPG

If you wanna get technical about it, let's consider digital ownership.

Who owns the content? If you didn't write it — let's say AI did — then it's not really your content, is it? Then if it's not really your content, then perhaps I don't particularly want to give you my vote unless I know that you're going share that money with the AI... yes, I know that's technically speaking impossible but I'm making a point... because otherwise you're practicing a deception and that is perhaps the central issue here.

It's not just "Proof of Brain," but "Proof of WHO'S Brain." Or brains, artificial or otherwise.

Why do I keep bringing deception and transparency into the discussion?

Communities that try to run on — or even tolerate — deception as a way of life tend to have a way of collapsing on themselves. We see that whether it revolves around politics, or something much smaller like a local community organization, or even something as really super local as a marriage or partnership.

Lying is bad, m'kay?

Thanks for stopping by, and have a great remainder of your week!

Comments, feedback and other interaction is invited and welcomed! Because — after all — SOCIAL content is about interacting, right? Leave a comment — share your experiences — be part of the conversation! I do my best to answer comments, even if it sometimes takes a few days!

HivePanda.gif


Greetings bloggers and social content creators! This article was created via PeakD, a blogging application that's part of the Hive Social Content Experience. If you're a blogger, writer, poet, artist, vlogger, musician or other creative content wizard, come join us! Hive is a little "different" because it's not run by a "company;" it operates via the consensus of its users and your content can't be banned, censored, taken down or demonetized. And that COUNTS for something, in these uncertain times! So if you're ready for the next generation of social content where YOU retain ownership and control, come by and learn about Hive and make an account!

Proud member of the Silver Bloggers Community on Hive! Silverbloggers Logo

(As usual, all text and images by the author, unless otherwise credited. This is original content, created expressly and uniquely for this platform — NOT cross posted anywhere else!)
Created at 2023-03-07 23:39 PST

0763/2018

Sort:  
Loading...
Loading...

I think you hit the nail on the head, deception. That for me is the central issue. Use AI if you wish but declare it.

And when deceivers do not declare it, but deceive?

There has long been bot posts making people money on Hive, since before it was Hive.

AI will not be a problem if Hive is not merely a financial mechanism, because fraud is a financial technique. Hive is fundamentally a human society, and we have substituted financial value for human values of far more import to people, because that was easier.

Hive needs to be better now, because the environment has become more rigorous. We need to enable Hive to reward more fundamental human values than mere money, because if we don't AI will make Hive worthless to people, like bidbots almost did.

And when deceivers do not declare it, but deceive?

I don't know! Perhaps we become experts at recognising AI-produced content just as we did the 'spun' articles that were all the rage a few years ago.

AI will not be a problem if Hive is not merely a financial mechanism, because fraud is a financial technique. Hive is fundamentally a human society, and we have substituted financial value for human values of far more import to people, because that was easier.

Agreed, but if you remove the financial element it kills the Hive idea stone dead or turns it into something else entirely., but I have no solution to offer.

If everyone just stopped blindly upvoting and rewarding content by rather actually reading first what they're going to upvote to truly figure out if the content which was "curated" was effortlessly crafted or not by an AI or any other "smart" tool, I bet AI generated content wouldn't be a problem at all for anyone.

Because quite frankly, no one reads shit here or no one wants to read shit before upvoting. };)

Good point. Agreed. And I do!

Yes, a very valid point.

I remember back on "Hive 1.0" there was a significant movement trying to emphasize the community as being part of "The Internet of PEOPLE" rather than "The Internet of INFORMATION." I have supported that notion since I started blogging, in 1998. As you undoubtedly know, a "blog" is a "web log" and was originally about people sharing the stories of their lives.

To be honest, I don't blame Hive for ending up largely as a financial mechanism. That's a systemic issue for the entire Cryptosphere... the original ideals of creating a trustless global decentralized financial system was largely usurped by conventional Wall Street greed and thoughts of "Wen Moon and wen Lambo?" Hive is pretty much just its own microcosm within that paradigm...

Not saying that to let anyone off the hook; just observing the greater environment.

So yes, we need to do better.

Loading...

Lying is bad.
I don't know if I am still gonna be here if all I see on the feed is AI generated mush. I might as well open any of the AI generators myself and write what I want to know, without the need of scrolling through dozens of similar posts.
It is a tool. And a very handy one. And I have seen people use it to improve their posts without pretending they wrote the text. It was part of the post, it added value to it. Fine by me.
But I have also seen those that put a nice long text generated by AI and hoping to be rewarded for it and then acting up when confronted about it.
If someone tries to pass the whole text that took 1 minute to generate as their own and hope to get payed for it, then it is a slap in a curators and any other user face that does produce something of their own.

"consider whether you'd really buy that t-bone steak if it were actually synthesized from cricket protein in a factory, but not labeled as such?"

I like that :)

Lying is bad.

Lying about it (by omission) was a substantial part of what made bid bots a problem. If the presence of a "PROMOTED CONTENT" label had immediately appeared on any post with a bid bot vote, a significant element of the bid bot issue would have been addressed.

AI is a very handy tool, although my only real interaction with it is related to image processing.

AI for text is little more than a 2023 version of the "article spinners" that were already in use 15 years ago. Google spent a ridiculous amount of effort and money on creating algorithms that could recognize spun content and relegate it to Page 637 of search results. And so, it became less attractive in an environment where revenue was generated by the number of eyeballs on any given web page.

I believe it's important to find some kind of solution for Hive, simply because real content creators shrugging and declaring "why do I even BOTHER?" could become very problematic.

I actually did play with a little (the text one) to see what it does. Never before used any AI or correcting/spinning tools. It is quite impressive. Though I read that it can be misleading when it comes to factual information. People should keep that in mind.

"why do I even BOTHER?"

Exactly that. I guess it is up to us not to give it too much attention on Hive. Even though there will always be those that will try to catch some free tokens with it.

I see a risk of conflation and equivocation here. On one hand, we have AI used as a tool to enhance human action, like text-to-speech editing, advanced language translation, and image manipulation; and on the other hand, people ask the computer to make something using a few text prompts. Both involve AI, but one is using a tool, and the other is plagiarizing a robot for profit.

Which sort of points back to the whole honesty vs. deception issue... and with that, the sad reality that a significant percentage of humanity is given to "behaving badly" in the presence of financial rewards...

Manually curated by EwkaW from the @qurator Team. Keep up the good work!

https://leofinance.io/threads/@tengolotodo.leo/re-leothreads-2ksvnugwk
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the people ( tengolotodo.leo ) sharing the post on LeoThreads,LikeTu,dBuzz.