spoiler

Context: The decline started way before AI.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Hm. That’s rolling the argument back a few steps there. None of the stuff we’ve talked about in the past few posts has anything to do with the impact of AI-on-AI training.

    I mean, you could stretch the idea and argue that there is a filtering problem to be solved or whatever, but that aside everything I’m saying would still be true if AI training exploded any time it’s accidentally given a “Hello world” written by a machine.

    • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      A lack of new human created code will bring AI training to a halt. That’s just not a thing

      I didn’t roll back anything. The entire conversation has ultimately been us disagreeing on this one point, and we clearly can’t overcome that with more back and forth, so I’m happy to agree to disagree. Cheers.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        But that point is not the same as LLMs degrading when trained on its own data.

        Again, it may be the same as the problem of “how do you separate AI generated data from human generated data”, so a filtering issue.

        But it’s not the same as the problem of degradation due to self-training. Which I’m fairly sure you’re also misrepresenting, but I REALLY don’t want to get into that.

        But hey, if you don’t want to keep talking about this that’s your prerogative. I just want to make it very clear that the reasons why that’s… just not a thing have nothing to do with training on AI-generated data. Your depiction is a wild extrapolation even if you were right about how poisonous AI-generated data is.