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

PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

hallofdreams.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#121

Post by BeetleB »

egypturnash wrote: post #80
Aerroon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand it for AI generated text, but I think there are a lot of people that like AI generated images. Image sites like get a ton of people that like AI generated images. Civitai gets a lot of engagement for AI generated images, but so do many other image sites.

People who submit blog posts here sure do love opening their blogs with AI image slop. I have taken to assuming that the text is also AI slop, and closing the tab and leaving a comment saying such. Sometimes this comment gets a ton of upvotes. Sometimes it gets indignant replies insisting it's real writing. I need to come up with a good standard response to the latter.

> People who submit blog posts here sure do love opening their blogs with AI image slop.

It sucks, but it doesn't suck any more than what was done in the past: Litter the article with stock photos.

Either have a relevant photo (and no, a post about cooking showing an image of a random kitchen, set of dishes, or prepared food does not count), or don't have any.

The only reason blog posts/articles had barely relevant stock images was to get people's attention. Is it any worse now that they're using AI generated images?

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#122

Post by MichaelZuo »

inasio wrote: post #113
firesteelrain wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t find it. He was trying to seed the site ?

This is what he replied when asked about the backdated comments: > The backdated answers were an internal test. We conceived of a bot that would provide a quality answer to a thread without a reply after 1+ years. That too also failed. Instead, I’m considering pruning all threads without a reply as they clutter up the forums.

He’s an SEO guy at shopify, so he likely doesn’t care about the consequences of doing shady SEO experiments with old user’s accounts…

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#123

Post by plagiarist »

COAGULOPATH wrote: post #27

Something I'm increasingly noticing about LLM-generated content is that...nobody wants it. (I mean "nobody" in the sense of "nobody likes Nickelback". ie, not literally nobody.) If I want to talk to an AI, I can talk to an AI. If I'm reading a blog or a discussion forum, it's because I want to see writing by humans . I don't want to read a wall of copy+pasted LLM slop posted under a human's name. I now spend dismayin…

Much of the benefit I get from LLMs is, ironically, avoiding LLM output from the results of web searches.

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#124

Post by nxobject »

MrPowerGamerBR wrote: post #53
COAGULOPATH wrote: post #27

Something I'm increasingly noticing about LLM-generated content is that...nobody wants it. (I mean "nobody" in the sense of "nobody likes Nickelback". ie, not literally nobody.) If I want to talk to an AI, I can talk to an AI. If I'm reading a blog or a discussion forum, it's because I want to see writing by humans . I don't want to read a wall of copy+pasted LLM slop posted under a human's name. I now spend dismayin…

> If I'm reading a blog or a discussion forum, it's because I want to see writing by humans. I don't want to read a wall of copy+pasted LLM slop posted under a human's name. This reminds me of the time around ChatGPT 3's release where Hacker News's comments was filled with users saying "Here's what ChatGPT has to say about this"

Pepperidge Farm remembers a time where ChatGPT 2 made no claims about being a useful information lookup tool, but was a toy used to write sonnets, poems, and speeches "in the style of X"...

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#125

Post by daveguy »

numpad0 wrote: post #101
daveguy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I need to come up with a good standard response to the latter. How about, "I'm sorry, but if you're willing to use AI image slop, how should I know you wouldn't also use AI text slop? AI text content isn't reliable, and I don't have time to personally vet every assertion."

Trying to gaslight your enemy is certainly an option for something, not always the best nor the one in line with HN guideline. Frankly it just rarely reduce undesirable behaviors even if you're in the mood to be manipulative.

Well, I wouldn't call that gaslighting, just a statement of fact. I guess you could go with "Sorry buddy, I don't trust your content because you used AI slop for your images." If you think saying the same thing with more words is manipulative and gaslighting.

Also, "enemy"? That's a little harsh, don't you think? I would never consider a random doofus on an internet forum to be my enemy.

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#126

Post by naijaboiler »

inasio wrote: post #113
firesteelrain wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn’t find it. He was trying to seed the site ?

This is what he replied when asked about the backdated comments: > The backdated answers were an internal test. We conceived of a bot that would provide a quality answer to a thread without a reply after 1+ years. That too also failed. Instead, I’m considering pruning all threads without a reply as they clutter up the forums.

Thats some really shady stuff. Its one thing to provide answers with AI bot. Its totally disingenuous to 1) backdate it 2) assume the alias of a real person

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#127

Post by segasaturn »

bee_rider wrote: post #44
kevinventullo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, on Facebook itself I am only friends with people I actually know in real life. So, most of the stuff I see in my feed is from them.

I’m only friends with people I know on Facebook, so I’m mostly see ads on that site. There’s a feed to just see stuff your friends post, but for some reason the site defaults to this awful garbage ad spam feed (no surprise really).

Do people still post things on Facebook? I don't know because I haven't used it, ever, but I've heard that Meta has turned it into a platform mostly for passively consuming algorithmically-driven content instead of sharing your day on your News Feed.

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#128

Post by jchw »

Self-Perfection wrote: post #83
jchw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Why in the hell would I want someone to use ChatGPT for me? If I wanted that, I could go use that instead.

I believe most times such responses are made in assumption that people are just lazy, like we used provide links to https://letmegooglethat.com/ before.

[dead]

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#130

Post by secretsatan »

I suspect a manager i work with has started using llms, i’ve sat next to him long enough before he went manager to know he’s incompetent, and now in chat, suddenly he spouts out of character plausible, but off for him explanations. I work in a company where for most english is not their first language so i’m not sure if anyone else has picked up on it.
Post reply on HN