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

131–140 of 165 posts

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#131

Post by scoofy »

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…

This has been a constant back and forth for me. My personal project https://golfcourse.wiki was built on the idea that I wanted to make a wiki for golf nerds because nobody pays attention to 95% of fun golf courses because those courses don't have a marketing department in touch with social media.

I basically decided that using AI content would waste everyone's time. However, it's a real chicken-or-egg problem in content creation. Faking it to the point of project viability has been a real issue in the past (I remember the reddit founders talking about posting fake comments and posts from fake users to make it look like more people were using the product). AI is very tempting for something like this, especially when a lot of people just don't care.

So far I've stuck to my guns, and think that the key to a course wiki is absolutely having locals insight into these courses, because the nuance is massive. At the same time, I'm trying to find ways that I can reduced the friction for contributions, and AI may end up being one way to do that.

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#132

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#133

Post by kjs3 »

scoofy wrote: post #131
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…

This has been a constant back and forth for me. My personal project https://golfcourse.wiki was built on the idea that I wanted to make a wiki for golf nerds because nobody pays attention to 95% of fun golf courses because those courses don't have a marketing department in touch with social media. I basically decided that using AI content would waste everyone's time. However, it's a real chicken-or-egg problem in con…

This is a really interesting conundrum. And I'm a golfer, so...

Of the top of my head I wonder if there's a way to have AI generate a summary from existing (on-line) information about a course with a very explicit "this is what AI says about this course" or some similar disclosure until you get 'real' local insight. No one could then say 'it's just AI slop', but you're still providing value as there's something about each course. As much as I personally have reservations about AI, I (personally, YMMV) am much more forgiving if you are explicit about what's AI and what's not and not trying to BS me.

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#134

Post by scoofy »

kjs3 wrote: post #133
scoofy wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been a constant back and forth for me. My personal project https://golfcourse.wiki was built on the idea that I wanted to make a wiki for golf nerds because nobody pays attention to 95% of fun golf courses because those courses don't have a marketing department in touch with social media. I basically decided that using AI content would waste everyone's time. However, it's a real chicken-or-egg problem in con…

This is a really interesting conundrum. And I'm a golfer, so... Of the top of my head I wonder if there's a way to have AI generate a summary from existing (on-line) information about a course with a very explicit "this is what AI says about this course" or some similar disclosure until you get 'real' local insight. No one could then say 'it's just AI slop', but you're still providing value as there's something about…

This is a good suggestion, and I'll think long and hard about it. My biggest concern is that the type of people who would contribute to such a public project are the type of folks who would be offended at the use of AI in general. That concern, again, leads me back to the conundrum of what to do.

I've always insisted that if it is financially feasible, I'd want the app to become a 501(c)(3) or at least a B-Corp, maybe even sold to Wikimedia. Still, the number of people who contribute to the side vs the number who visit is somewhere in the range of 1:10,000 (if that) right now, so concern about offending contributors is non-trivial.

As it stands, I've generally gone to the courses' sites and just quoted what they have to say about their own course, but that really isn't what I want to do, even if it is generally informative. Unfortunately, there is rarely hole-by-hole information, which is the level of granularity I'm going for.

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#135

Post by numpad0 »

daveguy wrote: post #125
numpad0 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The person posting an AI header likely isn't getting the reflexive gastric discomfort that anyone feels looking at one that doesn't happen with stock photos. They just can't even tell, and there's no path for them in that kind of antagonizing responses to lead them to the realization that others readily can and aren't liking it.

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#136

Post by Scoundreller »

wholinator2 wrote: post #117
layer8 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it is/was an A/B test, to see if it hurts ad revenue (it probably does). The option appeared randomly for me on a search, and I took immediately note of the udm number. :)

In addition to the others mentioned on the sibling comment (I cannot reply to it?), udm=28 is shopping, 36 is books, 37 is "products", 44 is "visual matches", 48 is "exact matches", 50 is "AI Mode" but no tab appears, 51 is homework and I stopped at 80 because the page kept removing that part of the url all the way up to that point.

For some reason the reply button won’t pop up right away but you can click on the post’s timestamp and reply there

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#137

Post by nyarlathotep_ »

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…

I do wonder how much of the push for LLM-integrated everything has taken this into account.

The general trend of viewing LLM features as forced against users' will and the now widespread use of "slop" as a derogatory description seems to indicate the general public is less enthusiastic about these consumer advances than, say, programmers on HN.

I use LLMs for programming (and a few other, general QA things before a search engine/wikipedia visit) but want them absolutely nowhere else (except CoPilot et al in certain editors)

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#138

Post by [deleted] »

roywiggins wrote: post #51
jgilias wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, there are solutions. One is a kind of a socialized trust system. I know that Lyn Alden that I follow on Nostr is actually her not only because she says so, but also because a bunch of other people follow her too. There are bot accounts that impersonate her, but it’s easy to block those, a it’s pretty obvious from the follower count. And once you know a public key that Lyn posts under, I’m sure it’s her. She could…

How can ZK approaches prevent people from renting out their human identity to AI slop producers?

[deleted]

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#139

Post by UltraSane »

bawolff wrote: post #39
UltraSane wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I exchange public keys with close friends in person. A large scale solution would be very Orwellian. You would need a national ID that is a smart card to connect to an ISP and possible biometric verification.

We already have e-passports and zero knowledge proofs to show you have one without revealing who you are. If all else fails, there is always the web of trust (i think web of trust has a lot of issues, but establishing soneone is human seems like a much lower bar than establishing identity)

I hadn't though of zero-knowledge proofs. That is an interesting idea.

Re: PhysicsForums and the Dead Internet Theory

#140

Post by UltraSane »

bawolff wrote: post #39
UltraSane wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I exchange public keys with close friends in person. A large scale solution would be very Orwellian. You would need a national ID that is a smart card to connect to an ISP and possible biometric verification.

We already have e-passports and zero knowledge proofs to show you have one without revealing who you are. If all else fails, there is always the web of trust (i think web of trust has a lot of issues, but establishing soneone is human seems like a much lower bar than establishing identity)

Web of trust would be interesting if phones could automatically trust other phones they spend enough time nearby.
Post reply on HN