How to Strategize Human Content Creation in the Era of GenAI?
2406.05187
0
0
📉
Abstract
Generative AI (GenAI) will have significant impact on content creation platforms. In this paper, we study the dynamic competition between a GenAI and a human contributor. Unlike the human, the GenAI's content only improves when more contents are created by human over the time; however, GenAI has the advantage of generating content at a lower cost. We study the algorithmic problem in this dynamic competition model about how the human contributor can maximize her utility when competing against the GenAI for content generation over a set of topics. In time-sensitive content domains (e.g., news or pop music creation) where contents' value diminishes over time, we show that there is no polynomial time algorithm for finding the human's optimal (dynamic) strategy, unless the randomized exponential time hypothesis is false. Fortunately, we are able to design a polynomial time algorithm that naturally cycles between myopically optimizing over a short time window and pausing and provably guarantees an approximation ratio of $frac{1}{2}$. We then turn to time-insensitive content domains where contents do not lose their value (e.g., contents on history facts). Interestingly, we show that this setting permits a polynomial time algorithm that maximizes the human's utility in the long run.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This research paper examines the dynamic competition between a generative AI (GenAI) and a human contributor in content creation platforms.
- It focuses on how the human contributor can maximize their utility when competing against the GenAI for content generation across different topics.
- The paper analyzes two content domain scenarios: time-sensitive (e.g., news, pop music) and time-insensitive (e.g., historical facts).
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at how generative AI might impact content creation platforms, like blogs or music sites. It compares a human contributor to a GenAI system that can generate content.
Unlike a human, the GenAI actually gets better at creating content the more the human contributes over time. However, the GenAI has an advantage in that it can generate content at a lower cost.
The researchers study the problem of how the human contributor can maximize their own "utility" (benefits) when competing against the GenAI for content across different topics.
In time-sensitive domains like news or pop music, where content loses value quickly, the paper shows there's no efficient algorithm for the human to find their optimal strategy, unless a major computing theory is false. But they do find a polynomial-time algorithm that cycles between short-term optimization and pausing, which guarantees at least half the optimal utility.
For time-insensitive domains like historical facts, where content retains value, the researchers find a polynomial-time algorithm that can maximize the human's utility in the long run.
Technical Explanation
The paper models the dynamic competition between a GenAI and a human contributor in content generation. Unlike the human, the GenAI's content quality only improves as more content is created by the human over time. However, the GenAI has the advantage of generating content at a lower cost.
The researchers study the algorithmic problem of how the human contributor can maximize their utility when competing against the GenAI across a set of topics. They consider two content domain scenarios:
-
Time-sensitive domains (e.g., news, pop music): In these domains, the value of content diminishes over time. The paper shows there is no polynomial-time algorithm for the human to find their optimal (dynamic) strategy, unless the randomized exponential time hypothesis is false. However, the researchers design a polynomial-time algorithm that cycles between myopic optimization and pausing, guaranteeing an approximation ratio of 1/2.
-
Time-insensitive domains (e.g., historical facts): In these domains, content does not lose its value over time. The paper demonstrates that this setting permits a polynomial-time algorithm that can maximize the human's utility in the long run.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a rigorous analysis of the dynamic competition between a human contributor and a GenAI system in content creation platforms. The researchers thoroughly consider the impact of content value diminishment over time and design efficient algorithms to address this challenge.
However, the paper does not address potential ethical concerns around the use of GenAI in content creation, such as the potential for misinformation or the displacement of human creative work. Additionally, the assumptions made about the GenAI's capabilities and the human's knowledge may not always reflect real-world scenarios.
Further research could explore the interplay between human and machine contributors in a more nuanced way, taking into account societal implications and unexpected obstacles that may arise in practical settings.
Conclusion
This research paper provides a detailed analysis of the dynamic competition between a generative AI and a human contributor in content creation platforms. The researchers develop efficient algorithms to help the human maximize their utility in both time-sensitive and time-insensitive content domains.
While the technical insights are valuable, the paper could benefit from a more comprehensive consideration of the potential ethical and societal ramifications of GenAI in content creation. Further exploration of these issues could help ensure the responsible development and deployment of these technologies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🤖
Generative AI in the Wild: Prospects, Challenges, and Strategies
Yuan Sun, Qiurong Song, Xinning Gui, Fenglong Ma, Ting Wang
0
0
Automated machine learning (AutoML) is envisioned to make ML techniques accessible to ordinary users. Recent work has investigated the role of humans in enhancing AutoML functionality throughout a standard ML workflow. However, it is also critical to understand how users adopt existing AutoML solutions in complex, real-world settings from a holistic perspective. To fill this gap, this study conducted semi-structured interviews of AutoML users (N=19) focusing on understanding (1) the limitations of AutoML encountered by users in their real-world practices, (2) the strategies users adopt to cope with such limitations, and (3) how the limitations and workarounds impact their use of AutoML. Our findings reveal that users actively exercise user agency to overcome three major challenges arising from customizability, transparency, and privacy. Furthermore, users make cautious decisions about whether and how to apply AutoML on a case-by-case basis. Finally, we derive design implications for developing future AutoML solutions.
4/5/2024
Generative AI in the Wild: Prospects, Challenges, and Strategies
Yuan Sun, Eunchae Jang, Fenglong Ma, Ting Wang
0
0
Propelled by their remarkable capabilities to generate novel and engaging content, Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) technologies are disrupting traditional workflows in many industries. While prior research has examined GenAI from a techno-centric perspective, there is still a lack of understanding about how users perceive and utilize GenAI in real-world scenarios. To bridge this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with (N=18) GenAI users in creative industries, investigating the human-GenAI co-creation process within a holistic LUA (Learning, Using and Assessing) framework. Our study uncovered an intriguingly complex landscape: Prospects-GenAI greatly fosters the co-creation between human expertise and GenAI capabilities, profoundly transforming creative workflows; Challenges-Meanwhile, users face substantial uncertainties and complexities arising from resource availability, tool usability, and regulatory compliance; Strategies-In response, users actively devise various strategies to overcome many of such challenges. Our study reveals key implications for the design of future GenAI tools.
4/8/2024
📈
The Influencer Next Door: How Misinformation Creators Use GenAI
Amelia Hassoun, Ariel Abonizio, Katy Osborn, Cameron Wu, Beth Goldberg
0
0
Advances in generative AI (GenAI) have raised concerns about detecting and discerning AI-generated content from human-generated content. Most existing literature assumes a paradigm where 'expert' organized disinformation creators and flawed AI models deceive 'ordinary' users. Based on longitudinal ethnographic research with misinformation creators and consumers between 2022-2023, we instead find that GenAI supports bricolage work, where non-experts increasingly use GenAI to remix, repackage, and (re)produce content to meet their personal needs and desires. This research yielded four key findings: First, participants primarily used GenAI for creation, rather than truth-seeking. Second, a spreading 'influencer millionaire' narrative drove participants to become content creators, using GenAI as a productivity tool to generate a volume of (often misinformative) content. Third, GenAI lowered the barrier to entry for content creation across modalities, enticing consumers to become creators and significantly increasing existing creators' output. Finally, participants used Gen AI to learn and deploy marketing tactics to expand engagement and monetize their content. We argue for shifting analysis from the public as consumers of AI content to bricoleurs who use GenAI creatively, often without a detailed understanding of its underlying technology. We analyze how these understudied emergent uses of GenAI produce new or accelerated misinformation harms, and their implications for AI products, platforms and policies.
6/19/2024
📉
Automating Creativity
Ming-Hui Huang, Roland T. Rust
0
0
Generative AI (GenAI) has spurred the expectation of being creative, due to its ability to generate content, yet so far, its creativity has somewhat disappointed, because it is trained using existing data following human intentions to generate outputs. The purpose of this paper is to explore what is required to evolve AI from generative to creative. Based on a reinforcement learning approach and building upon various research streams of computational creativity, we develop a triple prompt-response-reward engineering framework to develop the creative capability of GenAI. This framework consists of three components: 1) a prompt model for expected creativity by developing discriminative prompts that are objectively, individually, or socially novel, 2) a response model for observed creativity by generating surprising outputs that are incrementally, disruptively, or radically innovative, and 3) a reward model for improving creativity over time by incorporating feedback from the AI, the creator/manager, and/or the customers. This framework enables the application of GenAI for various levels of creativity strategically.
5/14/2024