alt Hacker NewsAI is trained on human data. And high quality human data at it's best.
Can we assume everything we think as AI - must have had a high-quality human pattern behind it, and there is no way to 100% prove which is which - unless the author shows a screencast of them typing the artice?
This is not healthy. The right thing to do is – if someone doesn't like an article, they should ignore it – they shouldn't so confidently brand it AI without any proof at all, just because it fits their mood and style.
Replies
At this point AI is trained on AI data, and it is moving AI output into super attractors that have no correlation with human text.
> AI is trained on human data. And high quality human data at it's best
And if there was any doubt that you don’t know how LLMs work, this line sorted it out lol.
> And high quality human data at it's best.
LLMs are trained on Reddit…
AI writing is not high-quality writing. And I don't think it's trained on particularly high-quality writing, I'm pretty sure it's trained on SEO slop. The old outputs of gpt-4o that loved the word "delve" read just like SEO spam blogs.
I think it's more complicated than that. Training does a lot more than just make models imitate the highest quality training data, and even what high quality training data includes can be subjective depending on your goals and tastes. And a lot of effort does go into making sure the models don't have "bad personality" - I'm sure a lot goes into making sure they trend towards appropriate reading levels and various other things that aren't strictly about being a Mark Twain or JRR Tolkien level writer.