• monobot ( monobot@lemmy.ml ) 
    18·
    3 years ago

    I think at some point we will have to introduce human confirmation from creator side.

    I don’t mind someone using chatgpt as a tool to write better articles, but most of internet is sensles bs.

  • Nawor3565 ( Nawor3565@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
    12·
    3 years ago

    Unfortunately, even OpenAI themselves took down their AI detection tool because it was too inaccurate. It’s really, REALLY hard to detect AI writing with current technology, so any such addon would probably need to use a master list of articles that are manually flagged by human.

      • apis ( apis@beehaw.org ) English
        2·
        3 years ago

        Suspect it would operate more on the basis of a person confirming that the article is of reasonable quality & accuracy.

        So not unlike editors selecting what to publish, what to reject & what to send back for improvements.

        If good articles by AI get accepted & poor articles by people get rejected, there may still be impacts, but at face value it might be sufficient for us seeking to read stuff.

  • Cwilliams ( Cwilliams@beehaw.org ) 
    3·
    3 years ago

    Another thought: does it really matter if it’s AI generated or not? As long as you can fact-check the content and the quality isn’t horrible, I don’t see why it matters if it’s written by a real person or not

  • apis ( apis@beehaw.org ) English
    3·
    3 years ago

    Have got fairly good at spotting these from the first few lines, but it would be nice to not bother clicking on them in the first place & better again if they didn’t clog up my search results.

    Back when it was just humans churning out rubbish, there was far less of it in the way of good information, but it helped enormously that search engines still respected operands.

    Bringing that back would likely help far more than a detector extension.