So, the reality is that the world "ran out of training data" for the most part years ago, and the models have gotten exponentially better relative to a number of parameters. Claude 3.7 Sonnet was released 1 1/2 years ago, and today it benchmarks about the same as Qwen 3.6 Sonnet 9B, a model two orders of magnitude smaller than it, and which is itself two generations out of date. And a large chunk of this is done with synthetic data - aka, data created by other models.
It's simply a myth that "data created by models consumed by other models makes them worse". In practice, it's used to make them vastly better. Models aren't collagers, they're reasoners. Learning the results of reasoning, the results of trial and error, etc helps build a stronger base for more advanced reasoning. Also, our training algorithms, while reaching a denser knowledge compression than human brains, are less efficient learners than human brains (per unit data), so they need to see the same sort of data from "many different angles", to substitute for our process of "mulling over" new information.
(Yes, it is possible to set up contrived scenarios where, say, an small image model is fed only its own outputs on loop, little bits of knowledge slowly being lost each go-round, in a situation equivalent to leaving a person alone with their thoughts in a dark room for ten thousand years - but even a tiny percent of new fresh data added to the mix prevents this degradation.)
And as for the article itself, they made it sound like they're talking about, say, programmers banned from using AI at OpenAI, but it's nothing of the sort. These are data labelers. In the old days, they used to be far more common, and in wide use in all types of model creation. That's no longer the case; they exist for special cases. For LLMs, this is much more limited:
* Subject matter experts: people with rare professional-tier knowledge. Often used to validate model outputs, where nobody else could (for example, OpenAI hires mathematicians to validate their models' proofs)
* Chain of thought / logic auditing. Increasingly important now that models are showing increasing signs of poor alignment. You can automate this a lot, but you really still do want a human in the loop *somewhere*, in case your auditors get compromised.
* Side by side comparative rating: Which model's output do you like more, A or B?
* Evaluating reported outputs where users reported that they thought the response they received was bad, and if there's actually anything wrong, copyediting the output for training.
* Adversarial prompt generation / jailbreaking and evaluation. Again, you *can* have models do this (and companies often do), but you don't want to just rely on them.
* Trying to set the bounds on whether given queries should be refused or not (for example, "How do explosive reactions happen in chemistry?")
Basically, a switch from "click work" to "knowledge work". This is no longer the era of "Write a poem about cats" or "Explain how to solve this algebra problem" to build up a training dataset. You're getting paid to think, not to repeat a rote task.
Other types of labelers aren't as far along. Multimodal data is less advanced than text, so you'll still for example have people labeling things in videos, transcribing heavily-accented audio, grading text-to-video consistency, things of that nature. Probably the least advanced field is robotics, so there's still an awful lot of manual evaluation and correction in that.
But anyway, if you're hired to do any of the above, it's because they specifically want you to do that. Having an AI model do the above (beyond the listed caveats) entirely defeats the purpose.
