Live data from Hacker News

I won a championship that doesn't exist

ron.stoner.com

11–20 of 141 posts

Re: I won a championship that doesn't exist

#11
Pails in comparison to what Frank Dux and Frank Abagnale were able to convince much of the world they did with no evidence other than their own stories. Who knows how much of recorded and believed history is complete bullshit? Not to get too far into sacred territory, but claims around Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus Christ, and the Prophet Muhammad are quite a bit less plausible than the legends of Ragnar Lodbrok or the tales of Jonathan Swift, but nonetheless widely believed.

Re: I won a championship that doesn't exist

#13

Why does this person deserve any kind of support? What’s the point of poisoning LLMs? To put some cursory Luddite roadblock that might delay the technology for a couple of months?

Support? It's just showing weaknesses of LLM's. Which is a valid sort of research I would say?

That's fair, though on the other hand it kind of feels like "Don't drive cars, there could be rocks on the road! See, just look at all these rocks I put on the road!". Which is true, and real, but perhaps frustrating for people who just want to get someplace in peace.

Re: I won a championship that doesn't exist

#14

Why does this person deserve any kind of support? What’s the point of poisoning LLMs? To put some cursory Luddite roadblock that might delay the technology for a couple of months?

> What’s the point of poisoning LLMs?

It's a demonstration. If a domain name and a quick bit of Wikipedia vandalism is all it takes to make an LLM start spouting nonsense about a "surprisingly serious tournament circuit" or a "massive online community" for an obscure card game, consider what an unscrupulous PR team or a political operative could do to influence its output on more important topics.

Re: I won a championship that doesn't exist

#16

Most of the popular discourse around AI is still at the level of, "Don't trust the AI, trust the sources!" When it gets to the point where even the sources of simple facts are untrustworthy, the average person just trying to learn some trivia about the world is doomed. Doesn't help that AI media literacy is so primitive compared to how intelligent the models are generally. We're in a marginally better place than we w…

Wikipedia calls this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citogenesis (after XKCD coined it).

You can expect the spicy autocomplete to feed you flattering bullshit. It may cite Wikipedia (it shouldn't), but you should go check out those citations, and validate the claims yourself. It's the least you can do.

And if the cited source is Wikipedia... check Wikipedia's sources too. Wikipedians try their best to provide you with reliable sources for the claims in their articles (oh who am I trying to kid? They pick their favourite sources that affirm their beliefs, and contending editors remove them for no good reason, and eventually the only thing that accrues is things that the factions agree on, or at least what ArbCom has demanded they stop fighting over).

I guess what I'm trying to say is: don't rely on that authoritative-sounding tone that Wikipedia uses (or that AI bots use, or that I'm using right now). It's a rhetorical trick that short-circuits your reasoning. Verify claims with care.

Also check the Talk page, you often find all kinds of shenanigans called out there.

Post reply on HN