Hey Everyone,
The Topic of the Hour is AI and if it is going to replace Authors and artists.
The answer to that is personally I don't know, but all through my life time new tools have replaced old tools and new skill replace old skills.
I suspect when paint brushes became mainstream someone was sad that finger painting was going to be a lost art. For years technology has been able to fix tone and key problems for singers who record in the studio and even a high-end karaoke system, with a talented KJ can fix the same issues at Karaoke. I'm only saying even if the idea bothers a person, there is probably very little one can do about it.
The good news is anything I could get out of any of the AIs I tried sounded like reading a encyclopedia rather than a novel or a interesting, personal post. These writing would likely not be very interesting anyway. While they may not get downvoted, they also are highly unlikely to gather a wide audience.
I mean, I could post the article above, but it is pretty lame and really isn't likely to build a wide audience.
After looking at content quality from the AI, I thought I'd test a few of AI detectors and I found them to be laughably inaccurate.
https://writer.com/ai-content-detector/
The first one I tried is at the link above, and the picture shows the results of an article that was 100% AI generated from. https://ai-pro.org/ai-tool-ai-chatbot/
As you can see the AI detector correctly identifies that the article is mostly AI, but misses the fact that it is 100%, I think that is within acceptable ranges.
However the problem started when I ran 4 different articles of my own through the checker.
My most recent post on whales and rebuilding my life came 100 percent from my head and registers as more than half AI.
See above.
I ran four of my articles from a variety of years through the detector and only one came back as 100% human written. One came back as 10% human written! Let's face it folks, I am not even a great writer and I rarely proof read.
In conclusion after reading several posts, I feel most people currently on the chain appear to be against AI written articles, not only do I understand why, I also think it is a valid opening position.
My concern is the fall-out of having a funded and already highly controversial group of people trying to take on or prove who's content is checked and defending the results in any meaningful way will be highly questionable.
I also find it funny, but not surprising that the group who has decided to add this to their scope and who are funded didn't bother to speak to what testing they did on these tools or how they would determine who's work to check, what tools to use, etc. While I have no problem with those who own their own stake downvoting whatever they want. It seems to me a funded group should publish their intent, tools and processes when they expand their scope.
I'm fine with whatever they do with it, but I do think I should consider breaking out the old dRAMA account.
Here is the article that HiveWatchers declares they have expanded their scope to downvote AI content.
@hivewatchers/ai-generated-content-not-original-content
Technology and automation are going to bring many interesting conflicts to many platforms in the coming years, just as it has in the past.
Everyone has been talking about it.. What's your view.
