You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Bloggers, Writers and "Synthetic Content"

in Silver Bloggers2 months ago

"Synthetic content" is a good term for some of this new wave of filler media A.I. slop. However, I am seeing a lot of active effort to replace real human content, and search engines seem complicit in pushing it to the head of the queue sometimes.

I was recently looking for some videos on how to do some car repairs. The Friend-Shaped Car has an awkward engine bay, and I wanted to double-check before removing some parts to make room to work. The first hits on a search were for A.I.-narrated videos that only gave the illusion of information, not something useful to a real D.I.Y. situation from a mechanic. There's nothing wrong with my Google-fu, because I've been at this for years. The search engines can censor ideas they don't like, but not synthetic content? Riiiiiight. They want us to make wrong clicks to sites selling more ad revenue and waste our time now, I think.

And I wasn't even using Google's search engine.

Sort:  

What's ironic about it is that 15 years ago Google was on a major kick to erase all click farm content from search results. I remember Google quality assurance czar Matt Cutts constantly releasing new countermeasures as part of the algorithm to get rid of the exact type of content that is now being spammed by AI.

I suppose the rationale behind pushing AI content to the forefront is the fallacy that it is somehow less subjective than human content... blithely overlooking the fact that AI draws from the existing knowledge base of human content.

Idiocracy, here we come!

It's the age-old problem of garbage in, garbage out combined with the inherent bias or error of whoever selects the training data.

It's like complaining that A.I. turns racist/sexist after it was "trained" on data including edgelord forums and 4chan.

Loading...