Our wetware neutral networks probably aren't supposed to engage with synthetic content like this either. In a few years we're gonna learn that overexposure to AI generated content creates some sort of neurological problem in people, like a real-world "nerve attenuation syndrome" (Johnny Mnemonic).
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59651 readers
2643 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I was very interested in the thumbnail of this post so I did a little digging and found this: The PDF to the Paper where the whole picture is
Wow, it's amazing that just 3.3% of the training set coming from the same model can already start to mess it up.
The solution for this is usually counter training. Granted my experience is on the opposite end training ai vision systems to id real objects.
So you train up your detector ai on hand tagged images. When it gets good you use it to train a generator ai until the generator is good at fooling the detector.
Then you train the detector on new tagged real data and the new ai generated data. Once it's good at detection again you train the generator ai on the new detector.
Repeate several times and you usually get a solid detector and a good generator as a side effect.
The thing is you need new real human tagged data for each new generation. None of the companies want to generate new human tagged data sets as it's expensive.
More like degenerative AIs
Kind of like how true thoughts and opinions on complex topics are boiled down to digestible concepts for others to understand who then perpetuate those concepts without understanding them and the meaning degrades and we dont think anymore, just repeat stuff in social media comments.
Side note... this article sucks and seems like it was ai generated. Repetitive and no author credit? Just says it was originally posted elsewhere.
Generative AI isnt in danger of being killed as this clickbait titled suggests... just hindered.
hindered.
I doubt that.
By chance, is that based on other peoples succinct social media comments on ai?
No. I simply don't see a plausible scenario for that. The social media comments are quite deplorable. You really have to look for bubbles with educated people. I don't know why this gets so much traction. Maybe it's because the copyright industry likes it, or maybe it feeds some psychological need like Intelligent Design.
Cant blame me for asking :)
Seems like tools to recognize ai content to prevent synthetic input avoids model degredation.
If those tools are up to the task then i would agree it probably doesnt hinder model training. Not sure what the reality is, or if the need for those tools creates a barrier to entry for a significant portion of those trying to create models with internet-crawled data.
There is no problem with ingesting synthetic data. Well, at least none coming from the fact that it is synthetic. If there was a fundamental difference between the 1s and 0s encoding synthetic data and the 1s and 0s encoding any other data, then you could easily filter it. But there isn't. The ideas that this community has are magical thinking.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Good
Good riddance.
Fake news, just like that one time Nightshade "killed" stable diffusion (literally had no effect) Flux came out not long ago and it's better than ever
At this point the synthetic data is good enough to intentionally be used for training LLMs.
Yeah, just filter out the bad generated images and feed the good ones again, until the model learns how to produce only good ones.
"Model collapse" is just a fancy way of saying "our stupid ideas are bad and nobody wants them."
No no. I think the LLMs. Or language models. Actually start to turn into mush “mentally” or how ever you phrase it.
is it not relatively trivial to pre-vet content before they train it? at least with aigen text it should be.
The problem is these AI companies currently exist on the business model of not paying for information, and that generally includes not wanting to pay content curators.
Google is probably the only one in a position to potentially outsource by making everyone solve a "does this hand look normal to you" CAPTCHA
They can try and train AI to detect AI, but that's also difficult.
So it's not a problem with AI. It's just a problem for some mayfly companies that try to profit from the latest trend?
load more comments
(1 replies)
It depends on what you are looking for. Identifying AI generated data is generally hard, though it can be done in specific cases. There is no mathematical difference between the 1s and 0s that encoded AI generated data and any other data. Which is why these model collapse ideas are just fantasy. There is nothing magical about any data that makes it "poisonous" to AI. The kernel of truth behind these ideas is not likely to matter in practice.
remember how nfts feel off (due to how they lost their value) have a theory that ais will come to the same fate cause they cannot train (it according to the article?)
Wait now hold on a minute. Why would I want to do this? Is this activism by people against LLMs in general or..? I'm confused as to why I would want to do this.
Oh no . .
Anyway
oh no are we gonna have to appreciate the art of human beings? ew. what if they want compensation‽
Oh no
Anyway
Sooner or later it is supposed to happen, but I don't think we are quite there....Yet.
Every single one of us, as kids, learned the concept of "garbage in, garbage out"; most likely in terms of diet and food intake.
And yet every AI cultist makes the shocked pikachu face when they figure out that trying to improve your LLM by feeding it on data generated by literally the inferior LLM you're trying to improve, is an exercise in diminishing returns and generational degradation in quality.
Why has the world gotten both "more intelligent" and yet fundamentally more stupid at the same time? Serious question.
Because the people with power funding this shit have pretty much zero overlap with the people making this tech. The investors saw a talking robot that aced school exams, could make images and videos and just assumed it meant we have artificial humans in the near future and like always, ruined another field by flooding it with money and corruption. These people only know the word "opportunity", but don't have the resources or willpower to research that "opportunity".
load more comments
(5 replies)
Oh no. Anyways...