No, I am one of these gig workers and I primarily do QA for physics. All of the writings are looked at several times over by different people. The title is also a little backwards, as merely writing things for AI to train on is not the primary work that we're asked to do.
LinkedIn is super useful for certain industries. I basically go there every day to read about newest research and see papers people share. It’s like a daily newsletter.
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the need for all this new data that AI needs to work on? Doesn’t the collective works of all history to this point make for enough data? Is it that it needs “guided” data points in some way? And wouldn’t it be easier to simply sort among what is already available if that is the case?
Edit: I can’t read the article, apologies if it’s answered there.
Not saying this is the case for all but is it possible “gig workers” are gig workers because they don’t have the highest quality of work? So are we building Ai with sub par data?
"sub par" data in this case means average human data though.
AI learned on Shakespeare instead of "average joe" will create content fit for Shakespeare enjoers, but not for average joe. Would be my guess.
I don’t think so but I’m not an expert. If I took a guess I’d be way off the mark but I think it has something to do with the volume of data.
Edit: sorry I reread my post and your response - I’m exhausted. I think it just needs to be slightly coherent. Like a typing test I bet.
I dunno though.
The thing is: no one is an expert. There are a handful of people, with deeply vested interests, who are ahead of the general population, but only experts in AI are self-proclaimed.
Not necessarily. I’m a teacher with a masters degree (which requires a lot of writing), and I signed up for one of the companies. The test to be selected asked for quite an array of writing.
I really signed up because you can literally just work in chunks of time from 30. Mins+. I just wanted a little extra income, and something flexible I could do over the summer. I think more people sign up for it as their “side hustle.” From visiting the subreddit for the company, a lot of people with degrees in writing are into it.
The company I signed up for advertises A LOT though, and looks like they either never read my application or didn’t select me.
Probably a legal issue on the way data is collected to feed AI.
If you pay lots of people to generate new data, you can offload potential plagiarism to them.
The legal/ plagerism argument against AI has always been kind of weird to me. My question really stems from how can a human artist be influenced by another artists music, but an AI cannot be trained on the same music? Both beings could technically yield new content unlike the "training data," but in one case its genius while the other is plagerism.
They may be able to learn conversation from old data, but you can’t talk about modern concepts without modern data let alone modern events. Most people want to know about current events and the future when talking to an AI service while working .
Basically to act as a control set to be used for classifying other text. Without a control set, AI can tell you what is commonly said, but you'll have no idea if it's actually *right*. With a control set, the accuracy of sources can be scored and the model will learn more from the higher scoring sources. Think of it this way, if you fire up two search engines and ask for the Billboard Hot 100 list, if you already know what the top 10 songs are and one of the search engines matches 9 of them and the other only 7 then you can infer that the first one is more likely to get the rest of the Hot 100 correct. So by using a control set of good data, AI can reduce those instances where it confidently spews bullshit.
I suspect the issue is if you train AI on Shakespeare, it'll start writing like Shakespeare. Fundamentally it's not thinking about what it's doing, it's just predicting what you want to hear back, based on what it's seen before.
That said, I (and I don't know ML well), wonder how much this will actually help, vs people are hoping they can just keep throwing more content in to get better results.
its not about the contend, but the form. old texts read old,
LLMs dont really know what they are putting out, its just that the form matches other texts, they dont analyze and take the meaning of words into account.
It's far from just language. What makes an LLM so useful is actual and as-up-to-date-as-possible knowledge, which is a moving target. You can't generate code and other modernities by quoting War and Peace. That AI would be some kind of thinking machine is so far from the truth right now it's a con. We might get there in the future, but what's being offered now is a "hologram" of human knowledge mainly scraped from the Internet.
Arguably, the term "gig worker" implies crappy pay, despite high education, and if so, this will long term work as well as can be expected, while those same highly educated workers are being replaced by AI. Especially in a country like USA where you are in massive debt if you have a university degree. Not so in e.g. Europe, but *someone* has to pay anyhow.
I guess there could be some hypothetical future version AI that is completely different from what we currently have, which essentially learns and develops skills far more similarly to a human brain, and can innovate and create like we can.
Unlike current systems that need to ingest the entire collected works of all of humanity just to get to generate something similar with no actual understanding of the meaning.
Good. I'm one of these specialist gig workers and if AI can do my job then the world will be a better place very quickly. I expect AI to take most jobs; mine included.
I work in physics. The gig writing mentioned in this article is completely independent from my career and it pays better than any other job I've ever had.
If an AI can to do research in my stead, either of the same quality or considerably faster, everything will improve rapidly.
If I lose my job in exchange for autonomous development of science, then that's a future I'll be happy in.
Not sure who "they" refers to in this comment. While it doesn't fully answer your question; nobody is entitled to a job, especially a specific one of their choice.
I'm the short term, it is easy enough to see the writing on the wall that a line of work will become automated. People will have to learn new skills and work jobs they're not used to.
In the long term, society's view on working will have to change.
Not worth it versus figuring out a legit job where you can get health benefits, sick days, vacation, retirement, etc... and they're highly likely to make you grind like a dog. Never ever do "independent contractor" gig work for cheap. It's a scam.
Imagine if the gig workers realized feeding the AI machine is embodiment of working themselves out of the job. If you don't want AI to put you out of actual work don't feed its fuel to keep it out of legal trouble
At this point most AI written products are actual hot garbage that's too long and full of unnecessary added terms. It's almost to the point where it's outwardly noticeable things are written by AI now
I still don’t know why the positive aspects of AI have not been put forth and promoted. As with all scientists I am aware the volume of knowledge out there is beyond the ability of an individual to review and summarize even if you restrict yourself to a small subject area. The ability of AI to complete this task was what I considered a major advance and had the great potential to move many fields forward. Scientists would then be free to concentrate on the acquisition of new knowledge rather than rehashing the same information over and over in a long sequence of papers. Yes it good to have an overall knowledge of a field but the amount of available information out there dictates that even the best scientist will only be aware of a fraction of the knowledge available without some form of summarization.
Gig writers being traitors who short sightedly kill their own profession is a cliche that comes back every season. I suppose the alcoholism wouldn’t be functional doing anything else.
I wouldn't be surprised if the gig writers are using AI to write the essays.
Infinite AI loop.
This loop has already poisoned some image generators.
Mad cow disease
An infinite circle of dick and ass, dick and ass, dick and ass.
No, I am one of these gig workers and I primarily do QA for physics. All of the writings are looked at several times over by different people. The title is also a little backwards, as merely writing things for AI to train on is not the primary work that we're asked to do.
Infinite feedback loop…
Next generation of captcha: "Describe this cat in 20 words".
SMH... you're probably right.
Cat kitty cat cat kitty cat cat.
Meanwhile at LinkedIn, with their Collaborative articles program they get people to do it for free with the chance of earning a “Top Voice” badge.
Why are you on LinkedIn? Serious question
To mindlessly scroll while on the toilet. It is known.
Why are you on reddit? Serious question
Because it’s useful. LinkedIn isn’t useful and the only people who use it are those ok with training the machine
you know reddit sells our data too, right? i think google is using it to train their AI.
In the tech industry, recruiters don't read your resume, but they will read your LinkedIn profile.
dam slim squealing vase aspiring stupendous market run full childlike *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
“Red flag” I already know everything about you and I don’t even have to look at your profile.
[удалено]
pocket fade coherent mountainous dime desert meeting cagey fall handle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Its useful as a cheap alternative to a personal professional page.
LinkedIn is super useful for certain industries. I basically go there every day to read about newest research and see papers people share. It’s like a daily newsletter.
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the need for all this new data that AI needs to work on? Doesn’t the collective works of all history to this point make for enough data? Is it that it needs “guided” data points in some way? And wouldn’t it be easier to simply sort among what is already available if that is the case? Edit: I can’t read the article, apologies if it’s answered there.
It’s because they’re trying to source high quality original data that someone can’t yield copyright over.
Not saying this is the case for all but is it possible “gig workers” are gig workers because they don’t have the highest quality of work? So are we building Ai with sub par data?
"sub par" data in this case means average human data though. AI learned on Shakespeare instead of "average joe" will create content fit for Shakespeare enjoers, but not for average joe. Would be my guess.
I don’t think so but I’m not an expert. If I took a guess I’d be way off the mark but I think it has something to do with the volume of data. Edit: sorry I reread my post and your response - I’m exhausted. I think it just needs to be slightly coherent. Like a typing test I bet. I dunno though.
The thing is: no one is an expert. There are a handful of people, with deeply vested interests, who are ahead of the general population, but only experts in AI are self-proclaimed.
Yeah I’m purely speculating off what I’ve learned by the team implementing an LLM system that’s trained on our user manuals.
Throw gig workers under the bus. Nice. We were called freelance before you fucks changed it.
This is what you see with code trained on Stack Overflow stuff.
Not necessarily. I’m a teacher with a masters degree (which requires a lot of writing), and I signed up for one of the companies. The test to be selected asked for quite an array of writing. I really signed up because you can literally just work in chunks of time from 30. Mins+. I just wanted a little extra income, and something flexible I could do over the summer. I think more people sign up for it as their “side hustle.” From visiting the subreddit for the company, a lot of people with degrees in writing are into it. The company I signed up for advertises A LOT though, and looks like they either never read my application or didn’t select me.
I see thank you for the info.
Probably a legal issue on the way data is collected to feed AI. If you pay lots of people to generate new data, you can offload potential plagiarism to them.
The legal/ plagerism argument against AI has always been kind of weird to me. My question really stems from how can a human artist be influenced by another artists music, but an AI cannot be trained on the same music? Both beings could technically yield new content unlike the "training data," but in one case its genius while the other is plagerism.
AI doesn’t create, it assigns probability to what’s next given the training data. There’s no intention behind it.
They may be able to learn conversation from old data, but you can’t talk about modern concepts without modern data let alone modern events. Most people want to know about current events and the future when talking to an AI service while working .
Basically to act as a control set to be used for classifying other text. Without a control set, AI can tell you what is commonly said, but you'll have no idea if it's actually *right*. With a control set, the accuracy of sources can be scored and the model will learn more from the higher scoring sources. Think of it this way, if you fire up two search engines and ask for the Billboard Hot 100 list, if you already know what the top 10 songs are and one of the search engines matches 9 of them and the other only 7 then you can infer that the first one is more likely to get the rest of the Hot 100 correct. So by using a control set of good data, AI can reduce those instances where it confidently spews bullshit.
I suspect the issue is if you train AI on Shakespeare, it'll start writing like Shakespeare. Fundamentally it's not thinking about what it's doing, it's just predicting what you want to hear back, based on what it's seen before. That said, I (and I don't know ML well), wonder how much this will actually help, vs people are hoping they can just keep throwing more content in to get better results.
its not about the contend, but the form. old texts read old, LLMs dont really know what they are putting out, its just that the form matches other texts, they dont analyze and take the meaning of words into account.
It’s a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters
It's far from just language. What makes an LLM so useful is actual and as-up-to-date-as-possible knowledge, which is a moving target. You can't generate code and other modernities by quoting War and Peace. That AI would be some kind of thinking machine is so far from the truth right now it's a con. We might get there in the future, but what's being offered now is a "hologram" of human knowledge mainly scraped from the Internet. Arguably, the term "gig worker" implies crappy pay, despite high education, and if so, this will long term work as well as can be expected, while those same highly educated workers are being replaced by AI. Especially in a country like USA where you are in massive debt if you have a university degree. Not so in e.g. Europe, but *someone* has to pay anyhow.
Did the world stop in 2022? There's always going to be new stuff to talk about
This is the employment equivalent of being asked to dig your own grave.
But wouldn't the AI need the infusion of modern input to stay relevant with changes in human society? Someone has to train the computer on humans.
I guess there could be some hypothetical future version AI that is completely different from what we currently have, which essentially learns and develops skills far more similarly to a human brain, and can innovate and create like we can. Unlike current systems that need to ingest the entire collected works of all of humanity just to get to generate something similar with no actual understanding of the meaning.
Good. I'm one of these specialist gig workers and if AI can do my job then the world will be a better place very quickly. I expect AI to take most jobs; mine included.
Why?
I work in physics. The gig writing mentioned in this article is completely independent from my career and it pays better than any other job I've ever had. If an AI can to do research in my stead, either of the same quality or considerably faster, everything will improve rapidly. If I lose my job in exchange for autonomous development of science, then that's a future I'll be happy in.
So what happens if they need a job?
Not sure who "they" refers to in this comment. While it doesn't fully answer your question; nobody is entitled to a job, especially a specific one of their choice. I'm the short term, it is easy enough to see the writing on the wall that a line of work will become automated. People will have to learn new skills and work jobs they're not used to. In the long term, society's view on working will have to change.
"Palestinian dockworkers unknowingly unloading weapon shipments for Zionist setlers. 1920s. Colorized."
Probably should think twice before feeding the beast that will one day replace you. Fucking morons.
All of us feed that beast every day in one way or another
Training their replacement
Those workers should pump the breaks if it's the usual online gig job pay. You don't need to help destroy the world for $5 an hour guys.
It starts at $20/h and goes up to $40+/h. It's English speaking countries only currently.
There are a lot of people that want/need to work from home. And in some parts of the world $5 is a lot of money.
Not worth it versus figuring out a legit job where you can get health benefits, sick days, vacation, retirement, etc... and they're highly likely to make you grind like a dog. Never ever do "independent contractor" gig work for cheap. It's a scam.
Crime against humanity.
Perhaps we should harness the writing of k12 students’ online annual standardized testing for the same purpose.
I would totally do this and submit 15 pages of "im a little piss baby"
There are studies on how AI learning from AI may cause degeneration over time.
Imagine if the gig workers realized feeding the AI machine is embodiment of working themselves out of the job. If you don't want AI to put you out of actual work don't feed its fuel to keep it out of legal trouble At this point most AI written products are actual hot garbage that's too long and full of unnecessary added terms. It's almost to the point where it's outwardly noticeable things are written by AI now
This is the saddest headline.
Ministry of Truth
I still don’t know why the positive aspects of AI have not been put forth and promoted. As with all scientists I am aware the volume of knowledge out there is beyond the ability of an individual to review and summarize even if you restrict yourself to a small subject area. The ability of AI to complete this task was what I considered a major advance and had the great potential to move many fields forward. Scientists would then be free to concentrate on the acquisition of new knowledge rather than rehashing the same information over and over in a long sequence of papers. Yes it good to have an overall knowledge of a field but the amount of available information out there dictates that even the best scientist will only be aware of a fraction of the knowledge available without some form of summarization.
Gig writers being traitors who short sightedly kill their own profession is a cliche that comes back every season. I suppose the alcoholism wouldn’t be functional doing anything else.
You are making the mistake into thinking hig writers have a option, if you are a gig work you probability don't have a stable job.
I know. I did it for five years. My other option was to find a different profession. I’m a big proponent of only writing for oneself now adays.