But humans can have a discussion about what is natural and what is not, and decide to mitigate it. The whole argument is based on the idea that the AI (either collectively or individually) can't even understand that, so the examples of cults etc. just do not apply.
It's really the paperclip maximizer argument again. "Superintelligent AI" will supposedly change the world, but will lack enough common sense to understand a simple instruction with ethical constraint. Same here, the crappy AI content will somehow take over the world, despite the fact that most humans can actually mostly recognize original content from a generated one.
The art that humans created doesn't replace nature, just like tons of kitsch don't pose a problem for new artists. In the same way, crappy AI content is not gonna replace good content, just augment it, and any decent AI (which has good enough common sense to be called "intelligent") will be able to tell the difference. Nobody's gonna care about crappy content in a few years, we are all gonna just throw it away, and this process happens continuously.
> But humans can have a discussion about what is natural and what is not, and decide to mitigate it.
(1) accuracy or fit for purpose, not natural, is the issue.
(2) evaluation, not having a discussion, is the issue.
(3) LLMs can definitely do evaluation, and probably can also have discussions and decide to, if given a proper prompt and access to ground truth in the first case, and if also used in a properly constructed agent framework, for the second.
(4) if you did all that, and used LLM decisions and not human decisions to guide retraining, I suspect with current LLMs you’d actually have made the problem worse not better, because you’d reduce the influence of higher-capacity and more diverse humans on the training cycle and increase the influence of less diverse, lower capacity LLMs.
And it works, people are more and more convinced that we should do something about climate change. Many measures have already been put in place. You can lament that it isn't happening fast enough for your liking, but you can't say it isn't happening. Humanity do change their mind about things all the time, just that it takes decades instead of years or months.
It's really the paperclip maximizer argument again. "Superintelligent AI" will supposedly change the world, but will lack enough common sense to understand a simple instruction with ethical constraint. Same here, the crappy AI content will somehow take over the world, despite the fact that most humans can actually mostly recognize original content from a generated one.
The art that humans created doesn't replace nature, just like tons of kitsch don't pose a problem for new artists. In the same way, crappy AI content is not gonna replace good content, just augment it, and any decent AI (which has good enough common sense to be called "intelligent") will be able to tell the difference. Nobody's gonna care about crappy content in a few years, we are all gonna just throw it away, and this process happens continuously.