Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: How to Kill the Dead Internet

chromewebstore.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: Show HN: How to Kill the Dead Internet

#11

Post by bigger_fish »

Gooblebrai wrote: post #8

I might not be understanding the tool, but how are you achieving this purpose? > to disincentivize anyone from posting AI writing, and eventually images and video as well, on the internet.

Good question! The idea is that if the tools like this gain sufficient adoption, people will stop seeing gen-AI content. Why post if no views?

If you need people to take you seriously and there is a chance that they will judge you for your gen-AI content because they know it's not your own work, would you still post it?

Re: Show HN: How to Kill the Dead Internet

#12

Post by bigger_fish »

gin_dev wrote: post #10

Interesting approach. But I guess most of the people who uses AI now, have already a feeling, if some text is prepared by AI or not :) I would point here to another issue - I guess most of the newly created public texts over the internet are at least passed through AI, just to polish and simplify it. So AI-style itself might be not that bad, if there is some interesting and newly invented idea behind. So the bigger p…

To your first point, yes, I agree. I would continue the thought that many of them are irritated with it and would rather not see it at all.

To the second point, that's the idea behind the adjustable threshold. It is indeed hard to distinguish; the extension will miss some gen-AI writing and return false-positives on some human writing. The user gets to decide which side to err toward.

It will never be infallible because the writing won't have C2PA metadata attached to it the way media does. It's just a tool that is a whole lot better than nothing for people who don't want to waste their time reading something written by a robot, or hate the inhuman homogeneity of "AI style." Don't you ever find yourself thinking "nobody talks like this?"

Re: Show HN: How to Kill the Dead Internet

#13

Post by bigger_fish »

O1111OOO wrote: post #9
bigger_fish wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by gatekeeper. Is it intended to keep the robots out? Yes, in that sense it belongs to the Cloudflare camp of bot detection software, not really a new thing. AI-speak won't become average-speak if I have anything to do with it. I want people to continue using their own brains to construct sentences rather than farming them out to machines.

> I suppose that depends on what you mean by gatekeeper. Something that is intended to evaluate every single post and if a regular human submits something that is even remotely suspiciously AI (even if "they used their own brains" to construct it), it would flag that user. Eventually if that user gets flagged enough by these "well-meaning", data-sharing, gatekeeping systems, they get booted off all the gatekeeping si…

Wow, you're taking in an Orwellian direction. The reason my extension doesn't qualify as a gatekeeper under your definition is that its use is distributed, not centralized. Each individual user gets to set the tolerance threshold according to their use case. It has no power to "act autonomously."

It also can't be used as a gatekeeper in that sense precisely because of its inherent fallibility. It will definitely miss some gen-AI writing and return false positives on real human writing. It's only supposed to be "much better than nothing" for people who reject the inhuman homogeneity of AI-writing and want to see less of it on their screen.

I'm not sure I follow your trickle-down argument, but in any case, the system is dynamic. It checks daily for new models and human-authored articles on their specific ticks, and cross-checks a corpus of known human-authored works. It will track both AI and human writing over time and adjust accordingly.

Re: Show HN: How to Kill the Dead Internet

#14

Post by O1111OOO »

bigger_fish wrote: post #13
O1111OOO wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suppose that depends on what you mean by gatekeeper. Something that is intended to evaluate every single post and if a regular human submits something that is even remotely suspiciously AI (even if "they used their own brains" to construct it), it would flag that user. Eventually if that user gets flagged enough by these "well-meaning", data-sharing, gatekeeping systems, they get booted off all the gatekeeping si…

Wow, you're taking in an Orwellian direction. The reason my extension doesn't qualify as a gatekeeper under your definition is that its use is distributed, not centralized. Each individual user gets to set the tolerance threshold according to their use case. It has no power to "act autonomously." It also can't be used as a gatekeeper in that sense precisely because of its inherent fallibility. It will definitely miss…

Sorry, I didn't mean anything by my response. I started to write and after a couple of words, the goofy side of me just took over. When I reread it, it sounded funny, in a light-hearted way, and so I decided to leave it.

On a busy thread, that kind of response would likely be downvoted into oblivion (as it should be). Thank you for your serious response to the topic.

Post reply on HN