And consequently a gray area of generated slop trying to pass off as created by people.

Feels like approximately 80-90% of AI generated art, writing, games, tools, etc come under that category now. Very few people seem willing to come out and say "yeah, I got Claude/ChatGPT/Codex/Gemini to make this".

Or if they do, they'll try and downplay by saying they used AI for some elements, but not most of them.

▲

jasongrishkoff 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Been a big problem in music.

On my site, we started asking artists to disclose their use of AI starting ~2 years ago. Turns out roughly 1 in 3 lied.

So, I developed an AI detector. It's working pretty well for that. But it's a schlep having to keep up with all the new models. We're processing ~60,000 songs a day at this point, kinda crazy!

	▲	tolugenius 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Curious on two things 1. How often do you encounter false positives, and does that change things? 2. Have you considered outright prohibiting/banning vs disclosure? Just want to hear from someone running a platform how they deal with this since I imagine it's very hard to get right.
	▲	andsoitis 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Been a big problem in music. On my site, we started asking artists What’s your site?
	▲	gchamonlive 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How do you handle false positives in the detector?

▲

Jare 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I can imagine that being a reaction to the negativity and backlash from a substantial (or very active) part of the audience, to anything built with AI. I don't imagine that shame for using AI for something, or fear of disclosing it, is self-imposed.

Ideally, how you create something and what tools you use should be nobody's business, and all it matters would be if they like it or not. But inherent value / merit is a thing, and concern for the provenance of what you buy is also a valid position for the public to take. It's gonna be a while before the balance settles on either AI = bad or AI = who cares.