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

We're losing our voice to LLMs

tonyalicea.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 425 posts

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#261

Post by dingnuts »

gordonhart wrote: post #250
coffeecoders wrote: post #99

I actually think we’re overestimating how much of "losing our voice" is caused by LLMs. Even before LLMs, we were doing the same tweet-sized takes, the same medium-style blog posts and the same corporate tone. Ironically, LLMs might end up forcing us back toward more distinct voices because sameness has become the default background.

My theory is that LLMs are accelerating [online] radicalization by commoditizing bland, HR-approved opinions. If you want to sound like a human on the internet, for better or for worse the easiest way is to say something that would make Anthropic’s safety team have a heart attack.

[dead]

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#262

Post by DSingularity »

chemotaxis wrote: post #48
ricardo81 wrote: post #6

I deleted my Facebook account a couple of years ago and my Twitter one yesterday. It's not just LLMs, it's how the algorithms promote engagement. i.e. rage bait, videos with obvious inaccuracies etc. Who gets rewarded, the content creators and the platform. Engaging with it just seems to accentuate the problem. There needs to be algorithms that promote cohorts and individuals preferences. Just because I said to someo…

> It's not just LLMs, it's how the algorithms promote engagement. i.e. rage bait, videos with obvious inaccuracies etc. I guess, but I'm on quite a few "algorithm-free" forums where the same thing happens. I think it's just human nature. The reason it's under control on HN is rigorous moderation; when the moderators are asleep, you often see dubious political stuff bubble up. And in the comments, there's often a fair…

It is of course human nature. The problem is what happens when algorithms can reenforce, exaggerate, and amplify the effects of this nature to promote engagement and ad-clicks. It’s cancer that will at the very least erode the agency of the average individual and in the worst create a hive mind that we have no control over. We are living in the preview of it all I think.

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#264

Post by xeonmc »

khannn wrote: post #248
mtlynch wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that explain what you observed? The only way I can understand that as an explanation is if your entire company can see each other's chats, and so she clicked yours and read the response you got. Is that what you're saying?

They're saying that the shared account is enough for OpenAI to provide the same result. Very interesting, I'd like to know more like was it a generic IUD or a specific one in the query. Also, the Doc is a cardiologist, they don't specialize in Gyno stuff and their training/schooling is enough for them to evaluate sources. Just for reference before AI it was typical for employers of doctors to pay for a service/app ca…

    Itemized Bill:
    - hitting the ChatGPT button: $1
    - knowing where to hit the ChatGPT button: $600k/year

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#267

Post by shevy-java »

Well - voice is ultimately coupled to a person. LLMs thus fake and pretend being a person. There are, however had, use cases for LLMs too. I saw it used for the creation of video games; also content generated by hobbyists. So, while I think AI should actually die, for hobbyists generating mods for old games, AI voice overs may not be that bad. Just as AI generating images for free to play browser games may not be solely bad either.

Of course there are also horrible use of AI, liars, scummy cheaters and fake videos on youtube, owned by a greedy mega-corporation that sold its soul to AI. So the bad use cases may be higher than the good use cases, but there are good use cases, and the "losing our voice to LLMs" isn't a whole view of it, sorry.

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#268

Post by CamperBob2 »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #184
alt227 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally dont feel like an ultra filtered social media which only shows me things I agree with is a good thing. Exposing yourself to things you dont agre with is what helps us all question our own beliefs and prejudeces, and grow as people. To me, only seeing things you know you are already interested in is no better than another company curating it for me.

> I personally dont feel like an ultra filtered social media which only shows me things I agree with is a good thing. Exposing yourself to things you dont agre with is what helps us all question our own beliefs and prejudeces, and grow as people. You are the one who gets to control what is filtered or not, so that's up to you. It's about choice. By the way, a social media experience which is not "ultra filtered" does…

For example, I deleted my account a month or so ago after discovering that the CEO of a popular cloud database company that I admired was following an account who posted almost exclusively things along the lines of "blacks are all subhuman and should be killed."

It seems like you're better off knowing that. Without Twitter, you wouldn't, right?

A venue that allows people to tell you who they really are isn't an unalloyed Bad Thing.

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#269

Post by 6thbit »

gordonhart wrote: post #250
coffeecoders wrote: post #99

I actually think we’re overestimating how much of "losing our voice" is caused by LLMs. Even before LLMs, we were doing the same tweet-sized takes, the same medium-style blog posts and the same corporate tone. Ironically, LLMs might end up forcing us back toward more distinct voices because sameness has become the default background.

My theory is that LLMs are accelerating [online] radicalization by commoditizing bland, HR-approved opinions. If you want to sound like a human on the internet, for better or for worse the easiest way is to say something that would make Anthropic’s safety team have a heart attack.

I mean there's still Grok... surely that gives may safety teams heartburn.

But I find this take interesting. The brewing of a new kind of counter culture that forces humans to express themselves creatively. Hopefully it doesn't get too radical.

Re: We're losing our voice to LLMs

#270

Post by krapp »

macintux wrote: post #253
chasing0entropy wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN let's you choose what order (active, new, top[actual algorithm]) That's not true of Facebook, new does not show you true posts in order of recency. Reddit still does, bit also injects ads that look like recent posts and actually aren't which is misleading.

And HN doesn't choose to show you targeted, inflammatory content based on your history. That's a huge difference from Facebook.

Most people on HN who advocate regulating social media don't only want to prevent those platforms from showing targeted inflammatory content, they want to make all algorithmic feeds other than strictly chronological illegal, as well as moderation of any legal content.

From that point of view, Hacker News is little different than Facebook. One could even argue that HN's karma system is a dark pattern designed to breed addiction and influence conversation in much the same way as other social media platforms, albeit not to the same degree.

Post reply on HN