It’s been defaced. It’s already got sex crimes and antisemitism all over the place.
Show HN: Hallucinopedia
141–150 of 285 posts
Re: Show HN: Hallucinopedia
#142Lots of antisemitism on there. Search “Jews”
Re: Show HN: Hallucinopedia
#143Care to elaborate? https://halupedia.com/015-fuck-jews-and-islamists
Allow me.
You can name an article anything you want, and the thing will generate content, though not necessarily relevant to the title you chose.
So some vandal comes along and supplies a hateful title, et voila.
Re: Show HN: Hallucinopedia
#144Funny, but you could argue this is actively harmful to the web.
It's probably only harmful to the AI scrapers that train from the web. Most people will understand the purpose of this -- to poison LLM training in a humorous way, which is really easy to do. It exemplifies a major weakness in modern day AI.
[dead]
Re: Show HN: Hallucinopedia
#145It’s been defaced. It’s already got sex crimes and antisemitism all over the place.
The mistake they made was allowing visitors to trigger the generation of articles via visiting any arbitrary URL.
A more resilient concept would have been, have a few "seed" articles in place, and then only allow for the creation of new articles by clicking a link in an existing article.
Re: Show HN: Hallucinopedia
#146The All Entries (https://halupedia.com/all-entries) part of the site is a bit alarming. I think OP might want to do a little bit of basic automoderation here.
Re: Show HN: Hallucinopedia
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
context. sometimes things simply have to be broken to give way for something better. ymmv.
I think there's an unexamined assumption here that "the next thing" is always going to be an improvement but there is no, non-ideological reason to hold to this assumption. Ideally, we would be actively working towards making it so but what often happens is passively riding the current and calling it "progress".
>unexamined assumption here that "the next thing" is always going to be an improvement but there is no, non-ideological reason to hold to this assumption
i'm not making that assumption at all, so whatever.
context: revolutions? if slop is a problem but is barely enough of a problem to collectively do something about it maybe letting it get out of hand would be a good motivation.
i'm not advocating for this, just providing it as a possible context where the "this is really bad so let's make it worse" argument could "make sense".
progress isn't just a technical issue, it involves people and people need motivation.
Re: Show HN: Hallucinopedia
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re caching the pages which have already been generated. You could go back and delete all references to pages which don’t exist yet. Basically turn it into a static website.
It seems like the site's algorithm is that every newly-generate page includes multiple links to not-yet-existing pages. So it doesn't matter that existing pages are cached, all the "leaf node" pages link to multiple uncached new pages.
I’m suggesting to turn that off and prune the links to pages which weren’t generated yet if cost becomes an issue.
Re: Show HN: Hallucinopedia
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the record, > Funny, but you could argue this is actively harmful to the web. Was not followed by an actual argument that it is harmful to the web. The comment was an assertion, not an argument. So we are left in the inconvenient position of rejecting hypothetical arguments, and others defending the philosophical possibility that a valid argument does exist.
Without the argument being explicit then there can be no retort to it, so closing your mind before hearing it demonstrates that the argument itself is irrelevant. One could thus conclude that the existence of a valid argument is not itself a condition for my question.
We also shouldn’t close our minds to the possibility of an eigen-retort, one which covers all possible arguments already made or argued in the future regarding the consequences of this website on the health of the Internet.
Someone who is aware of the eigen-retort would therefore not need to hear the argument.
Since I haven’t heard either the hypothetical argument or the hypothetical eigen-retort yet, I’ll withhold my judgement.
Re: Show HN: Hallucinopedia
#150Give it a week and see what Google AI Overview has to say about the Great Pigeon Census of 1887!
By Featherton, no less.