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

Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”

fry-ai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 252 posts

Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”

#121

Post by haliskerbas »

costco wrote: post #93

I'm doing an experiment with AI posting on Reddit accounts to see if they would get banned. I bought 100 few-week-old accounts from some sketchy site for $0.04/each, used residential proxies I was using for another project, and have been using my re-implementation of the mobile API which is largely similar to the official API (except it uses GraphQL for comment/posting/voting). I use these prompts to come up with com…

I’ve seen a similar prompt before, did you get the inspiration from somewhere?

Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”

#122

Post by costco »

haliskerbas wrote: post #121
costco wrote: post #93

I'm doing an experiment with AI posting on Reddit accounts to see if they would get banned. I bought 100 few-week-old accounts from some sketchy site for $0.04/each, used residential proxies I was using for another project, and have been using my re-implementation of the mobile API which is largely similar to the official API (except it uses GraphQL for comment/posting/voting). I use these prompts to come up with com…

I’ve seen a similar prompt before, did you get the inspiration from somewhere?

Yes, it's partially based on the Snapchat AI one. I don't really know that much about optimizing prompts so I started there, removed the stuff that didn't apply and added a few things of my own. There is probably a lot of room for improvement.

Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”

#123

Post by SnorkelTan »

costco wrote: post #115
SnorkelTan wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you created your own accounts instead of buying them, you would know that this format is the username format reddit automatically suggests for you :). Also residential proxies are overkill unless you're doing crime. They also likely expose you to participation in a criminal conspiracy since the provenance of those ips is sketchy at best. IANAL YMMV. Mullvad offers a year subscription for ~$50. Also they support wi…

I use what https://www.pingproxies.com/ calls ISP Proxies, which I think is just them reselling a /22 they got from Charter. Definitely aren't botnet proxies because they have 100% uptime. Duly noted about VPNs though! I would imagine Reddit is more VPN tolerant than most sites.

Thanks for the tip. Didn't know these were a thing. Have you done any research into them? It seems like with these sorts of ventures a lowly techie like myself doesn't have a lot of ways to validate if what they say in their marketing is actually true.

The uptime is a pretty strong signal tho.

Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”

#124

Post by andai »

costco wrote: post #93

I'm doing an experiment with AI posting on Reddit accounts to see if they would get banned. I bought 100 few-week-old accounts from some sketchy site for $0.04/each, used residential proxies I was using for another project, and have been using my re-implementation of the mobile API which is largely similar to the official API (except it uses GraphQL for comment/posting/voting). I use these prompts to come up with com…

>Current problem is that the responses typically range from cynical to way too enthusiastic.

Interesting, this sounds like it could be solved with sentiment analysis.

Best approach would probably be to match the sentiment of the thread / comment you're replying to.

Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”

#125

Post by rashkov »

costco wrote: post #93

I'm doing an experiment with AI posting on Reddit accounts to see if they would get banned. I bought 100 few-week-old accounts from some sketchy site for $0.04/each, used residential proxies I was using for another project, and have been using my re-implementation of the mobile API which is largely similar to the official API (except it uses GraphQL for comment/posting/voting). I use these prompts to come up with com…

This one is kind of hilarious:

“Why are old people so obsessed with collecting things like spoons, thimbles, and shot glasses? It's like they want to have a tiny version of every object in the world.”

Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”

#126

Post by kikokikokiko »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #95
costco wrote: post #93

I'm doing an experiment with AI posting on Reddit accounts to see if they would get banned. I bought 100 few-week-old accounts from some sketchy site for $0.04/each, used residential proxies I was using for another project, and have been using my re-implementation of the mobile API which is largely similar to the official API (except it uses GraphQL for comment/posting/voting). I use these prompts to come up with com…

This kind of "social experiment" just makes everything worse for everyone.

The only datasets that will be useful to train LLMs in the future will be the ones generated before 2022. Any content generated after this date will be analogous to steel forged after 1945, it will be inevitably contaminated by the "radioactivity" of LLMs.

The good news is that the availability of data to train more and more powerful models will soon be gone, the bad news is it will take the internet as we know it with it.

It will be a sad day when most of HN posts are AI generated, but this day will come, it's pretty much inevitable. The post above us is just a drop in an ocean of garbage generators that are just starting to pop up all around the old human web that we used to "love". We'll probably miss old Twitter someday, as ridiculous as it sounds.

Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”

#127

Post by costco »

SnorkelTan wrote: post #123
costco wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use what https://www.pingproxies.com/ calls ISP Proxies, which I think is just them reselling a /22 they got from Charter. Definitely aren't botnet proxies because they have 100% uptime. Duly noted about VPNs though! I would imagine Reddit is more VPN tolerant than most sites.

Thanks for the tip. Didn't know these were a thing. Have you done any research into them? It seems like with these sorts of ventures a lowly techie like myself doesn't have a lot of ways to validate if what they say in their marketing is actually true. The uptime is a pretty strong signal tho.

I did a whois on the IPs I was given and found they were owned by one ISP and were all in a similar range so there's that. A lot of ISPs (especially T-Mobile) lease IP space out like this too: https://rasbora.dev/blog/detecting-residential-proxy-network.... I would probably be paying a lot less if they were unethically sourced.

In general, if a provider advertises a 5-figure-IP-sized "pool" of IPs with a guaranteed number of "ports" (simultaneous connections), then the operator is almost certainly someone looking to monetize a botnet. Usually the cheapest plan would be something like pool of 20000 IPs - 500 connections, with the number of connections maxing out at 1/4-1/2 of the total IPs due to diurnal dynamics (people in major botnet victim countries like India/China often turn off their routers every night). Also advertising really specific geotargeting is often a sign that they are marketing to carders. The Krebs articles about awmproxy/TDSS are pretty good if you enjoy reading about this kind of thing :)

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/09/rent-a-bot-networks-tied... https://krebsonsecurity.com/2022/06/the-link-between-awm-pro...

Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”

#128

Post by seszett »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #126
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of "social experiment" just makes everything worse for everyone.

The only datasets that will be useful to train LLMs in the future will be the ones generated before 2022. Any content generated after this date will be analogous to steel forged after 1945, it will be inevitably contaminated by the "radioactivity" of LLMs. The good news is that the availability of data to train more and more powerful models will soon be gone, the bad news is it will take the internet as we know it wi…

The good news is that this will mostly affect English, but most other languages are likely to keep being mostly generated by humans. This could even encourage people to use their own language more on the internet, which I think is a win for human cultural diversity.

I don't know if there is any escape from this for native English speakers, though.

Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”

#129

Post by bbor »

charles_f wrote: post #68
sidesideangle wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say they are not capable of reasoning?

What a weird question, it really should be reversed shouldn't it? But here goes. It's a language model. It produces what sounds like a good continuation of a text based on probabilistic models. While it sounds like human generated content, "it" doesn't actually "think". It doesn't have a culture. It doesn't have thoughts. "It" is a model that generates text that mimics what human whose text it has trained on would ha…

A good paper I know of written to directly refute this comment’s line of reasoning, by a British chap named Alan: https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238

Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”

#130

Post by Nursie »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #95
costco wrote: post #93

I'm doing an experiment with AI posting on Reddit accounts to see if they would get banned. I bought 100 few-week-old accounts from some sketchy site for $0.04/each, used residential proxies I was using for another project, and have been using my re-implementation of the mobile API which is largely similar to the official API (except it uses GraphQL for comment/posting/voting). I use these prompts to come up with com…

This kind of "social experiment" just makes everything worse for everyone.

It’s interesting what’s possible, and perhaps it shows off how low-thought a lot of human discussion is.

But in the end it’s noise and it pollutes human communication channels. It’s already hard enough to have an honest discussion when there are profit motives and agendas at play. Now we have effectively added probabilistic noise to the mix.

I don’t particularly fault the author for doing it, I’m sure it was fun and intellectually rewarding, and they’re unlikely to be the only one. But still.

Post reply on HN