this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2026
44 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

42810 readers
222 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If so are these programs that claim to 'poison' the training datasets effective ?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Brummbaer@pawb.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If I understand it right you need to enrich and filter data with human input so as not to collapse the model.

Wouldn't that imply if the human enrichment is emulating AI data too closely it will still collapse the model, since it's now just the human filtering that's mimicing AI data?

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago

The main mechanism leading to model collapse in that paper, as I understand it, are the loss of "rare" elements in the training data as each generation of model omits things that just don't happen to be asked of it. Like, if the original training data has just one single line somewhere that says "birds are nice", but the first generation of model never happens to be asked what it thinks of birds then this bit of information won't be present in the second generation. Over time the training data becomes homogenized. It probably also picks up an increasing load of false or idiosyncratic bits of information that were hallucinated and get reinforced due to random happenstance, it's been a long time since I read the article and details slip my mind.

I'm really not seeing how human filtering would mimic this process, so I think it's safe. The filtering is being done with intent in that case, not due to random drift as is done with a purely automated generation like was done in the paper.