In our pursuit of the blockchain and cryptocurrency conversation, we come across intriguing parallels between the problems we face today and the origins of the cryptocurrency narrative. In particular, the unfolding drama around the inundation of AI-generated submissions, more commonly known as spam, to online publications. As David Z. Morris points out, this situation harks back to the inception of Bitcoin and the challenges the cryptocurrency first sought to address.
The rapid rise of large language models (LLMs) like GPT3, which can create human-like text, is causing consternation across sectors. For the publishing industry, the issue has reached alarming heights, disrupting the work of renowned platforms like Clarkesworld and threatening the livelihoods of real authors. With his deep-seated hesitation to even call GPT3 ‘artificial intelligence’, Neil Clarke highlight the dystopian situation in which real, meaningful communication is overwhelmed by mechanised gibberish.
However, it’s worth noting that the cryptocurrency world faced a similar challenge early on with the rampant issue of email spam. Computer scientist Adam Back, a figure instrumental in the development of Bitcoin, conceived of “Hashcash” as a solution. Hashcash proposed attaching a cost to sending an email as a means to curb spam, a rather ingenious and prescient idea that mirrors the unfolding crisis with AI-generated submissions plaguing the publishing domain.
Illustratively, Clarkesworld began to see submissions via GPT3 right after its release in late November. Its use was expedited significantly by those submitting plagiarized works, seeking a swift profit off someone else’s effort. Much like email spam, this form of information deluge hits those at the margins the hardest. In this case, new authors and those from less connected communities are getting sidelined.
Interestingly, the current problem might be soothed by revisiting the foundations of the cryptocurrency concept: attaching cost to an action to avert reckless use of resources. In principle, a Hashcash-like system could help alleviate the fake submission problem by requiring a slim, refundable fee for all submissions. This could dampen low-quality submissions, ease the load on editors, and yet be inconsequential for genuine human authors since payments would be returned. Moreover, such a payment system wouldn’t be hindered by global borders or institutional prerequisites, much like cryptocurrency.
Whether or not this approach works for Clarkesworld and others grappling with an AI spam siege remains to be seen. However, it is a stark reminder of the prescience of the original cryptocurrency narrative and the broad applicability of this technology. It also illuminates the considerable challenge AI spam presents and suggests that as we gaze into the blockchain future, we might sometimes glean inspiration from its past.
Source: Coindesk
