The more you think about it, the worse it gets.
They hired contractors on the condition that they provide human feedback without AI; those people broke the rules, so their contracts ended prematurely.
Not sure why this is news uncovered by an investigative journalist.
What is it, exactly, that makes AI-generated text so poisonous to AIs but totally harmless to humans? What is mode/model collapse, and why can it only happen to AIs with too much AI text in their training data and not to, say, human students with too much AI text in their textbooks? The people who know the most about this phenomenon seem much more careful about contamination than they are encouraging us to be.
Is your objection to the word “train” in headline? Otherwise, you’re just restating the headline while calling it clickbait (which, btw, it’s not, perhaps you meant to say it is misleading, which is a different thing.)
Its the same difference between "I was arrested for having liquid in my car while driving" and "I was arrested for holding an open bottle of whiskey while driving"
(I’m not trying to be disingenuous, though I am trying to express a niche viewpoint. Hopefully, my willingness to take the metaphorical role of conspiracy theorist is understood as epistemic humility.)
in_absentia•59m ago
gadders•45m ago
jrflo•38m ago
in_absentia•15m ago
I've been told on HN about a year ago that the era of scraping is over and that it's all AI-training-AI now. My web server logs and stories like that disagree.
pfortuny•15m ago
beepbooptheory•14m ago
liquicity•36m ago