111
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
111 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13436 readers
707 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
In one of the forums for the niche hobby I'm into, Google snippets have already been causing chaos for years.
Eg: "You're wrong because Google says that I need to do this". Well Google is wrong and doing that is the entire reason why you're having so many problems.
When investigating how the snippet was made it's either from a review or forum comment made by a newbie that somehow got traction or often someone saying DON'T do it that way, but their algorithm doesn't pick up the nuance and gets it twisted.
More recently it's been through taking snippets of entirely AI pages that write absolute gibberish which sound impressive to people with only a passing familiarity.
This is gonna make things sooooooo much worse.
I wonder if this will happen: "To make a chocolate milkshake: 1. Thank you kind stranger!..." And then news will break that Google is claiming a malformed algorithm caused their AI to suck up the entirety of Reddit. And after that Google will be forced to admit "Oh, oops!" the wonky algorithm caused Google to suck up ginormous amounts of data from 10,000s of sites on the net. Then they'll say they're "untraining" which is another big lie. All they'll do as fast as they can is smooth out plagiarism so they can have deniability.
I wouldn't be surprised if a few years from now Google's legal team is at the supreme court claiming something ridiculous. Some of the best legal minds in the US are pushing the bullshit idea that AI cannot plagiarize because it doesn't know what plagiarism actually is. And the GOP majority seems to love the idea.
Three quarters of that is idiots not only believing what they see on the internet, but believing the first thing they see at the top of search results, without context.
We should be using computers as a means of interfacing with things generated by other humans, not expecting some simple algorithm to read our minds.