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

Dead Internet Theory

kudmitry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 735 posts

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#471

Post by zahlman »

Avicebron wrote: post #199
GMoromisato wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely why LLMs are so disruptive. It used to be that a long, written paper was like a proof-of-work that the author thought about the problem. Now that connection is broken. One consequence, IMHO, is that we won't value long papers anymore. Instead, we will want very dense, high-bandwidth writing that the author stakes consequences (monetary, reputational, etc.) on its validity.

The Methyl 4-methylpyrrole-2-carboxylate vs ∂²ψ/∂t² = c²∇²ψ distinction. My bet is on Methyl 4-methylpyrrole-2-carboxylate being more actionable. For better or worse.

Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say with that.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#472

Post by DrScientist »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #380
quantummagic wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As they say, the demand for racism far outstrips the supply. It's hard to spend all day outraged if you rely on reality to supply enough fodder.

This is not the right thing to take away from this. This isn't about one group of people wanting to be angry. It's about creating engagement (for corporations) and creating division in general (for entities intent on harming liberal societies). In fact, your comment is part of the problem. You are one of the people who want to be outraged. In your case, outraged at people who think racism is a problem. So you attack…

> Until you realize that this is the root of the problem, that the whole system is built to make people angry at each other, you are only contributing to the anger and division.

It's not built to make people angry per se - it's built to optimise for revenue generation - which so happens to be content that makes people angry.

People have discovered that creating and posting such content makes them money, and the revenue is split between themselves and the platforms.

In my view if the platforms can't tackle this problem then the platforms should be shutdown - promoting this sort of material should be illegal, and it's not an excuse to say our business model won't work if we are made responsible for the things we do.

ie while it turns out you can easily scale one side of publishing ( putting stuff out their and getting paid by ads ), you can't so easily scale the other side of publishing - which is being responsible for your actions - if you haven't solved both sides you don't have a viable business model in my view.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#474

Post by narag »

A couple of different uses of AI, recently detected in YouTube:

1. There are channels specialized in topics like police bodycam and dashcam videos, or courtroom videos. AI there is used to generate voice (and sometimes a very obviously fake talking head) and maybe the script itself. It seems a way to automatize tasks.

2. Some channels are generating infuriating videos about fake motorbikes releases. Many.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#475

Post by direwolf20 »

lrvick wrote: post #465
seiferteric wrote: post #116

My parents were tricked the other day by a fake youtube video of "racist cop" doing something bad and getting outraged by it. I watch part of the video and even though it felt off I couldn't immediately tell for sure if it was fake or not. Nevertheless I googled the names and details and found nothing but repostings of the video. Then I looked at the youtube channel info and there it said it uses AI for "some" of the…

If there are ad incentives, assume all content is fake by default. On the actual open decentralized internet, which still exists, mastodon, IRC, matrix... bots are rare.

Of course - because everyone is banned upon first suspicion.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#476

Post by cubefox »

meander_water wrote: post #294

Not foolproof, but a couple of easy ways to verify if images were AI generated: - OpenAI uses the C2PA standard [0] to add provenance metadata to images, which you can check [1] - Gemini uses SynthId [2] and adds a watermark to the image. The watermark can be removed, but SynthId cannot as it is part of the image. SynthId is used to watermark text as well, and code is open-source [3] [0] https://help.openai.com/en/ar…

> The watermark can be removed, but SynthId cannot as it is part of the image.

That's not quite right. SynthID is a digital watermark, so it's hard to remove, while metadata can be easily removed.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#477

Post by self_awareness »

nkmnz wrote: post #392
self_awareness wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Is a video documenting racist behavior a racist or an anti-racist video? Is faking a video documenting racist behavior (that never happened) a racist or an anti-racist video? Is the act of faking a video documenting racist behavior (that never happened) or anti-racist behavior?

Video showing racist behavior is racist and anti-racist at the same time. A racist will be happy watching it, and anti-racist will forward it to forward their anti-racist message.

Faking a racist video that never happend is, first of all, faking. Second, it's the same: racist and anti-racist at the same time. Third, it's falsifying the prevalence of occurrence.

If you'll add to the video a disclaimer: "this video has been AI-generated, but it shows events that happen all across the US daily" then there's no problem. Nobody is being lied to about anything. The video shows the message, it's not faking anything. But when you impersonate a real occurence, but it's a fake video, then you're lying, and it's simple as that.

Can a lie be told in good faith? I'm afraid that not even philosophy can answer that question. But it's really telling that leftist are sure about the answer!

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#478

Post by midius »

gwd wrote: post #445
LexiMax wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in multiple Discord servers with people I know IRL. In fact, I'd say it's probably the easiest way to bootstrap a community around a friend-group.

Is this a generational thing? All my groups of this type are on WhatsApp (unfortunately).

might be a regional thing instead, i don't know many americans with whatsapp -- all of my friends are on discord.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#479

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

self_awareness wrote: post #316
neilv wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't heard that saying. Many people seek being outraged. Many people seek to have awareness of truth. Many people seek getting help for problems. These are not mutually exclusive. Just because someone fakes an incident of racism doesn't mean racism isn't still commonplace. In various forms, with various levels of harm, and with various levels of evidence available. (Example of low evidence: a paper trail isn't le…

[flagged]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN