[mfcl]

(Why are you being downvoted?)

I think the important part is to have a minimum of filtering. Humans consume knowledge brought by others humans, but most of the time we cherry pick the true and useful knowledge and reject what turns out to be false (ideally).

I think what AI brings to the table is automation and speed, but the quality is not better. So if AI starts consuming its own content, will that decrease the quality of knowledge* in general?

(*Here I mean the first knowledge you quickly get from a search or asking some AI, not what you could get after hours/days of research.)

[nuancebydefault]

HN crowd is so very skeptical about the usefulness of a.i., especially related to content generation. I share the skepticism (the positive and hence out of control feedback loop of ai consuming its own content recursively). But on the other hand, when smart people enhance the primitives of the a.i. algorithms, a.i. might become better at rating the quality of its own output. Not by means of the question, 'does this look like anything found on the internet' , rather by the question, 'does this make sense, is this even possible, do the numbers add up' ? Also, it is not very hard to "freeze" a pre-ai knowledge base or NN, and use that as a reference for sensibility.

[coldtea]

>But on the other hand, when smart people enhance the primitives of the a.i. algorithms, a.i. might become better at rating the quality of its own output

All incentives of massive industries like SPAM, "content creation", "news" publishing, and advertising, are against it becoming better at rating the quality of its output - or rather, just have it become better at being undetactable but still a cheap fast mass produced wall of text...