People will still be asking if things are AI decades from now, because people will still be using AI for deception and fraud.
Tiktok has things like fake generated cooking videos now. After someone tries one, and it doesn't actually work, they're going to want to know if other videos are real before trying again.
If someone has to ask, "Is this AI?" before they can tell the difference, then at least part of their reaction is about the label rather than the content itself. If they genuinely can't tell the difference, then whether it was created by a human or by AI makes little practical difference in terms of the content.
I think it matters because for a lot of us writing and thinking happen at the same time.
Something that's been written "well" shows that someone has thought about it, maybe reframed it some way or just done something by thinking about it for a while.
AI can think, but whether it's thought about something or not it's always going to sound the same.
If you are using it to help you think fine but I think it's about effort and I would want to know how much effort you've put in.
That's a fair point. For factual content, AI output should be verified rather than trusted blindly because hallucinations are real. I see AI more as something to challenge and verify my thinking than as something to make decisions for me.
People also say things that are untrue? So I guess it boils down to reputation and attribution. I kinda feel like there is a wierd knee jerk to pretend like “ before AI, if it was written, you could trust it” which absolutely was never true.
Generally, people have to make an active decision to spread false information, or be misinformed themselves in the first place, and that's not actually particularly common, whereas for LLMs it's just the default due to how they work and it's difficult to filter out due to how they present everything with such confidence and authority
Thing is that pre-AI even for that you need to spend time and effort.
Now those deterrent barriers are not anymore so that kind of content can be produced massively at industrial scale.
"Somewhat dishonest"? It's plagiarism. Just because you claim the output of a machine as your own instead of the writing of another human as your own doesn't somehow make it yours and not plagiarism.
If you can't tell the difference between deception and truth, does it matter whether I lied? You only focus on the labels true/false, rather then the content of what I tell you!
Almost everything will be "AI", because it's also coming to our keyboards (first step will be the virtual keyboard of Android/iOS...) where it will in practice rewrite every message we send automatically and then every standardized form in browsers and OS will have it as well, it's already starting.
People will still be asking if things are AI decades from now, because people will still be using AI for deception and fraud.
Tiktok has things like fake generated cooking videos now. After someone tries one, and it doesn't actually work, they're going to want to know if other videos are real before trying again.
If someone has to ask, "Is this AI?" before they can tell the difference, then at least part of their reaction is about the label rather than the content itself. If they genuinely can't tell the difference, then whether it was created by a human or by AI makes little practical difference in terms of the content.
I think it matters because for a lot of us writing and thinking happen at the same time.
Something that's been written "well" shows that someone has thought about it, maybe reframed it some way or just done something by thinking about it for a while.
AI can think, but whether it's thought about something or not it's always going to sound the same.
If you are using it to help you think fine but I think it's about effort and I would want to know how much effort you've put in.
I think it matters because AI can hallucinate so it makes me doubt the truthfulness
It's also somewhat dishonest to present unedited AI-written content as your own work
That's a fair point. For factual content, AI output should be verified rather than trusted blindly because hallucinations are real. I see AI more as something to challenge and verify my thinking than as something to make decisions for me.
People also say things that are untrue? So I guess it boils down to reputation and attribution. I kinda feel like there is a wierd knee jerk to pretend like “ before AI, if it was written, you could trust it” which absolutely was never true.
Generally, people have to make an active decision to spread false information, or be misinformed themselves in the first place, and that's not actually particularly common, whereas for LLMs it's just the default due to how they work and it's difficult to filter out due to how they present everything with such confidence and authority
Thing is that pre-AI even for that you need to spend time and effort. Now those deterrent barriers are not anymore so that kind of content can be produced massively at industrial scale.
Automated (semi)intentional lying on internet predates LLMs
"Somewhat dishonest"? It's plagiarism. Just because you claim the output of a machine as your own instead of the writing of another human as your own doesn't somehow make it yours and not plagiarism.
If you can't tell the difference between deception and truth, does it matter whether I lied? You only focus on the labels true/false, rather then the content of what I tell you!
Almost everything will be "AI", because it's also coming to our keyboards (first step will be the virtual keyboard of Android/iOS...) where it will in practice rewrite every message we send automatically and then every standardized form in browsers and OS will have it as well, it's already starting.