List of Citogenesis Incidents

When I was homeless, I asked around on the internet for a source for who said that. There is a real incident where a British official said something like "We shoot people who do that" but it wasn't about cannibalism.

But the toxic classist forum where I asked initially replied to me with basically "You're just a stupid homeless person misremembering that." No, I read it in my teens when I had a near photographic memory and was one of the top students in my high school class and everyone respected me as one of the smart people, long before the world decided I was some loser making things up. I'm quite clear the anecdote in the book was about cannibalism.

There is a real historical incident similar to it, but the book got the details wrong.

I have also read some crazy accounts of how Einstein's Theory was proved because the solar eclipse bent light so much, you could see a star that our Sun should have been obscuring.

Humans tend to believe things we read. If it's in writing, it has some kind of authority in our minds.

This is often not the case and we need to get better about recognizing that a lot of "writing" on the internet is just modern chit chat and not reliable.

Our species has obviously managed to make it pretty far without facts for the longest time. But we've comfortably lived with easily verified facts for 20-30 years and are now faced with a return to uncertainty.

If I had to guess, we'll see stricter controls on institutions such as Wikipedia that rely on credentialism and frequent auditing as a means to counter the new at-volume information creation capacity. But I don't really have the faintest idea of how this will turn out yet. It's wild to think about how much things are changing.

The success of an LLM is quite subjective. We have metrics that try to quantitatively measure the performance of an LLM, but the "real" test are the users that the LLM does work for. Those users are ultimately human, even if there are layers and layers of LLMs collaborating under a human interface.

I think what ultimately matters is that the output is considered high quality by the end user. I don't think that it actually matters if an input is AI generated or human generated when training a model, as long as the LLM continues producing high quality results. I think implicit in your argument is that the _quality_ of the _training set_ is going to deteriorate due to LLM generated content. But:

1) I don't know how much quality of the input actually impacts the outcome. Almost certainly an entire corpus of noise isn't going to generate signal when passed through an LLM, but what an acceptable signal/noise ratio is seems to be an unanswered question.

2) AI generated content doesn't necessarily mean it is low quality content. In fact, if we find a high quality training set yields substantially better AI, I'd rather have a training set of 100% AI generated content that is human reviewed to be high quality vs. one that is 100% human generated content but unfiltered for quality.

I don't necessarily think this feedback loop, of LLM outputs feeding LLM inputs, is necessarily the problem people say it is. But might be wrong!

That doesn't really fit here, but it's a similar idea.

That's what everyone else is saying already. Not sure what exactly you are arguing against.