Comment by concats
22 days ago
I didn't catch it immediately, but after you pointed it out I totally agree. That comment is for sure LLM written. If that involved a human in the loop or was fully automated I cannot say.
We currently live in the very thin sliver of time where the internet is already full of LLM writing, but where it's not quite invisible yet. It's just a matter of time before those Dead Internet Theory guys score another point and these comments are indistinguishable from novel human thought.
> … the internet is already full of LLM writing, but where it's not quite invisible yet. It's just a matter of time …
I don't think it will become significantly less visible⁰ in the near future. The models are going to hit the problem of being trained on LLM generated content which will cause the growth in their effectiveness quite a bit. It is already a concern that people are trying to develop mitigations for, and I expect it to hit hard soon unless some new revolutionary technique pops up¹².
> those Dead Internet Theory guys score another point
I'm betting that us Habsburg Internet predictors will have our little we-told-you-so moment first!
--------
[0] Though it is already hard to tell when you don't have your thinking head properly on sometimes. I bet it is much harder for non-native speakers, even relatively fluent ones, of the target language. I'm attempting to learn Spanish and there is no way I'd see the difference at my level in the language (A1, low A2 on a good day) given it often isn't immediately obvious in my native language. It might be interesting to study how LLM generated content affects people at different levels (primary language, fluent second, fluent but in a localised creole, etc.).
[1] and that revolution will likely be in detecting generated content, which will make generated content easier to flag for other purposes too, starting an arms race rather than solving the problem overall
[2] such a revolution will pop up, it is inevitable, but I think (hope?) the chance of it happening soon is low
To me it seems like it'd only get more visible as it gets more normal, or at least more predictable.
Remember back in the early 2000's when people would photoshop one animals head onto another and trick people into thinking "science has created a new animal". That obviously doesn't work anymore because we know thats possible, even relatively trivial, with photoshop. I imagine the same will happen here, as AI writing gets more common we'll begin a subconscious process of determining if the writer is human. That's probably a bit unfairly taxing on our brains, but we survived photoshop I suppose
we didn't really survive photoshop.
The obviously fake ones were easy to detect, and the less obvious ones took some some sleuthing to detect. But the good fakes totally fly under the radar. You literally have no idea how much of the images you see are doctored well because you can't tell.
Same for LLMs in the near future (or perhaps already). What will we do when we'll realize we have no way of distinguishing man from bot on the internet?
I'd say the fact that you know theres some photoshop jobs you can't detect is proof enough that we're surviving it. It's not necessarily that we can identify it with 100% accuracy, but that we consider it a possibility with every image we see online
> What will we do when we'll realize we have no way of distinguishing man from bot on the internet?
The idea is this is a completely different scenario if we're aware of this being a potential problem versus not being at all aware of it. Maybe we won't be able to tell 100% of the time, but its something which we'll consider.