• faltryka@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 days ago

    Yeah that makes sense. I know people are concerned about recycling AI output into training inputs, but I don’t know that I’m entirely convinced that’s damning.

      • faltryka@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 days ago

        Yeah I agree garbage in garbage out, but I don’t know that is what will happen. If I create a library, and then use gpt to generate documentation for it, I’m going to review and edit and enrich that as the owner of that library. I think a great many people are painting this cycle in black and white, implying that any involvement from AI is automatically garbage, and that’s fallacious and inaccurate.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 days ago

          Yes, but for every one like you, there’s at least one that doesn’t and just trusts it to be accurate, or doesn’t proof read it well enough and misses errors. It may not be immediate, but that will have a downward effect over time on quality, which likely then becomes a feedback loop.

    • lorty@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      No matter how good your photocopier is, a copy of a copy is worse, and gets worse everytime you do it.

    • magic_lobster_party@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 days ago

      The theory behind this is that no ML model is perfect. They will always make some errors. So if these errors they make are included in the training data, then future ML models will learn to repeat the same errors of old models + additional errors.

      Over time, ML models will get worse and worse because the quality of the training data will get worse. It’s like a game of Chinese whispers.

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      I think the biggest issue arises in the fact that most new creations and new ideas come from a place of necessity. Maybe someone doesn’t quite know how to do something, so they develop a new take on it. AI removes such instances from the equation and gives you a cookie cutter solution based on code it’s seen before, stifling creativity.

      The other issue being garbage in garbage out. If people just assume that AI code works flawlessly and don’t review it, AI will be reinforced on bad habits.

      If AI could actually produce significantly novel code and actually “know” what it’s code is doing, it would be a different story, but it mostly just rehashes things with maybe some small variations, not all of which work out of the box.

    • MinFapper@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      It may be fine for code, because malformed code won’t compile/run.

      It’s extremely bad for image generators, where subtle inconsistencies that people don’t notice will amplify.