Live data from Hacker News

AI slop is killing online communities

rmoff.net

611–620 of 781 posts

Re: AI slop is killing online communities

#611
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems naive. As long as people are "enjoying" the AI-infested social networks, or at least not annoyed enough to leave, they will stay on them, and become further disconnected from reality. We have half of EU teenagers talking to chatbots regularly. Alienated people flock to them.

For one point, I was a daily active user of Reddit for 10 years, I deleted my account and left the platform in January over LLM content.

Yes. I did not left but visit the site less often and kind of worry about its future. The engagement over what I post is just much lower, while the number of reported visitors seems to increase. I don't mind some good quality AI comment, sometimes one see it, but overall it is slowly becoming ghost town.

Re: AI slop is killing online communities

#612

I think the only reason stackoverflow still has any activity is because the community choose to ban AI content [1] and so did most of its other networks [2]. Perhaps it will even see a (small) resurgence when AI providers start charging for the actual costs. [1] https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831 [2] https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/384922

The AI companies aren't so deep in the red when you only look at inference though - they are investing loads in new models in an AI arms race. So I don't imagine AI is going to go away, especially given that now there are more open source models like Qwen that you can run locally. So even if those American behemoths go bankrupt it will persist.

> The AI companies aren't so deep in the red when you only look at inference though - they are investing loads in new models in an AI arms race.

Depends on how you're looking at it (using speculated numbers for easy math):

1. Having operating costs of $100m on revenue of $10b is very deep in the red, regardless of training costs.

2. Having $90m training costs on $10m revenue means they're just breaking even.

Problem is, we don't know their financials and how it is broken down (they could, of course, clear up the confusion and release some numbers, ut they aren't doing that now); all we know is when they need a new raise to continue operating.

From the raises we can determine what their operating costs are (For example, raised $30m in 2024, then $300m in 2025 is a 10x increase in operating costs because they aren't spending on capex. The training is done on opex).

From their subscriptions (which are all only estimated), we can sorta tell what the revenue is, but that's for subscriptions only which are almost guaranteed to be running at a loss (until recently, anyway). We don't even have estimates on revenue from the PAYG API users. Common sentiment is you'd be a fool to use the PAYG options for anything but trialing the service, but the world is filled with fools, so you never know!

What is interesting is comparing the prices for PAYG on the providers supplying open models vs the PAYG on the closed models - the suppliers providing open models aren't spending on training cost, so the cost to supply tokens on open source models is pretty close to the actual price of running models. This is partially confounded by the fact that many of these will have VC money backing them (they are not bootstrapped), and so will also try to perform landgrabs via subsidised tokens, because their goal is an exit with a buyout, and without an eventual acquisition they will simply fail.

I can't think of many open source model suppliers providing subscriptions, not ones that subsidise the subscription, at any rate.

The first IPO of these SOTA providers is going to be the eye-opener; we'll finally see their financials and we'll see just how much the PAYG was subsidised, and how much the subscriptions were subsidised.

Until then, with a collective industry investment of $800b (last I checked) and a collective revenue of $20b (last I checked), they are most definitely operating in the red for the most common definitions of operating in the red.

Re: AI slop is killing online communities

#613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or applying for an account could involve sending a handwritten letter by post.

Slop as a letter is a thing already https://www.axidraw.com/

Not that I don't take your point that such a service could exist, but the site you linked explicitly says they don't offer letter writing as a service.

Also, I imagine it's not impossible to reliably distinguish between an autopen and genuine handwriting. The company who's site you linked say their machine can't perform complex pen movements so calligraphy is impossible.

The real advantage of posting a letter is that you have to pay for postage, and the stamps on the envelope will indicate which country the letter is really coming from.

Re: AI slop is killing online communities

#614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a surprise to us how vehemently some folk defended AI content and assumed it was their right to post it within our community. We had no problems with people using it and posting elsewhere, it was the demands that we must allow it that were problematic and made us question whether we were doing the right thing. No regrets now, though, as we see competitors being flooded with AI slop and they are too invested in…

>It was a surprise to us how vehemently some folk defended AI content and assumed it was their right to post it within our community. People often confuse freedom of speech, with freedom to access a specific platform for speech. Its dead wrong, I dont know why people would want to be in a community where they arent wanted.

> I dont know why people would want to be in a community where they arent wanted.

This is standard predatory behavior. Child abusers hanging out with kids, weirdos hanging out near the women's clothing department, etc.

It's usually a clear indication of the sort of people you don't want to associate with in your online community. They bring a net negative to the table.

Re: AI slop is killing online communities

#615
post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does not work, for similar reasons why captchas piss off real humans. You add a barrier here. You think that your solution means that AI is reduced, but you also reduce real humans. I noticed this with other parts too, such as "you need to verify your identity before you can post to the ruby issue tracker". I can do so, but I need my tablet and this takes me more time than before, so I stopped using the ruby iss…

Metafilter and Something Awful both do this. Both sites have survived and continue to work well for their users. A small cost does definitely work for some sites.

Is SA still a thing? I had an account since... 2007? God I'm old. I miss the days when you could have a community that you could easily search for content. Nowadays everything is a discord black hole.

Re: AI slop is killing online communities

#616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about charging $1 or $5 for an account? Seems like you could stem the tide pretty easily with something like that.

Or applying for an account could involve sending a handwritten letter by post.

Adding that much friction is also going to loose you many genuine users. Might be worth it depending on the community but if it makes newcomers fewer than your usual churn rate its a death sentence.

Re: AI slop is killing online communities

#617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The decline of Facebook is sad. I liked it early on. I used it primarily to follow family and casual friends from high school. When they posted, it would show up on my feed, I read all the posts, and that was that. After awhile I had to wade through all sorts of nonsense to get to the posts I actually wanted to see, and even later Facebook stopped putting posts from people I follow in my feed. It was 100% garbage. I…

Facebook is fine if you join groups based on your interests (hobbies etc) and then aggressively unfollow/block anything you don't want to see. It's not really conducive to discussions like Reddit, though. Mostly drive-by comments.

> then aggressively unfollow/block anything you don't want to see

That is hard work. I have a few friends in the trans world and occasionally interact with relevant groups on FB. The attention algorithm thinks that this means I might want to see random posts from pricks who literally want to see people like my friends herded up into concentration camps. Most of it is far less extreme than that, but the system is definitely optimised in favour of rage-bait because that ticks up the engagement metrics.

Re: AI slop is killing online communities

#618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does not work, for similar reasons why captchas piss off real humans. You add a barrier here. You think that your solution means that AI is reduced, but you also reduce real humans. I noticed this with other parts too, such as "you need to verify your identity before you can post to the ruby issue tracker". I can do so, but I need my tablet and this takes me more time than before, so I stopped using the ruby iss…

> Charging money means you will also offset real humans at the same time. On completely different scales. Even if it not perfect, it is strong enough of a filter to turn a bot infestation into a mild annoyance.

That's an assumption. Depending on the incentives in play, the relative scale at which AI users and real humans are affected may well be the opposite of what you expect.

Re: AI slop is killing online communities

#619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering StackOverflow is now providing a ground truth for AI training, I believe the ban is more about not poisoning the well rather than keeping the StackOverflow or StackExchange human-friendly. That ship has sailed long time ago with zealot admins and verbal harassment.

> That ship has sailed long time ago with zealot admins Where there are certainly strong examples of this, a lot of people mistake enforcing the rules as zealotry. Part of the point of SO was that if things don't change then there is a completed state for SO too - no need to ask duplicate questions like on platforms where a post is less long-lived. Unfortunately people take things like “this is a dup”, “provide more…

People also always bring up the "fake XY problem" thing on SO as a sign of toxicity or whatever, but I’ve had many, many results where it was a XY problem, and the actual problem Y was solved, yet I landed there searching for a solution to X :/

Re: AI slop is killing online communities

#620

The company I work for has a deep rooted community side and despite what big techs do, I am 100% confident the only aspects we have in community features are for the user benefit. No gray area. Just that. Since the AI sloppification we lost considerable amount of traffic to bots. But worse than that, we lost users who tended to contribute back with others. We can leverage multiple ways of exposing community data to m…

I left multiple online communities because the slop and the slop users were unbearable. I use ai okay. I think it's useful. But people who dove hard into this stuff treat all text on their screen like it's a chat bot and not a person. "Rewrite this code using the new API" "excuse me?" "Can you do it I need it right now chatgpt won't compile!" "Show me your code please" provides the biggest pile of dookie ever "hey ca…

We decided that we will use ai to automate stuff and to connect people but not for content. We are paying the price of it. That search engine that shall not be named deeply punished us for it.
Post reply on HN