131–140 of 178 posts
AI is pretty much killing social media in the long term. Even pre-AI, a good chunk of posts/comment sections on sites were bots/paid. Reddit is becoming less believable than ChatGPT. I guess there's still the Onion-verse.
Yes, Dead Internet Theory went from joke to reality in what feels like overnight.
AI is pretty much killing social media in the long term. Even pre-AI, a good chunk of posts/comment sections on sites were bots/paid. Reddit is becoming less believable than ChatGPT. I guess there's still the Onion-verse.
I'm not convinced you can have an impromptu global conversation to any positive end. Humans are not well suited to this task and an unsupervised mostly anonymous forum plays to those weaknesses and provides no support to generate positive outcomes. It was never a particularly good idea at the scale it's currently deployed at.
Looks like this is a report on how the company just…handles its business: https://doublespeed.ai/
How does one profit from this farm of AI content on TikTok?
According to Cambridge's data, $100 gets you around 2k fake but verified tiktok accounts: https://cotsi.org/platforms?view=map&platform=lf
Viewbotting is a pretty big issue on all the streaming platforms. Twitch changed their technical measures recently and a bunch of big streamers concurrent viewers dropped by a large amount. "Fake it until you make it" is a viable strategy with streaming. It's all about fake engagement to game the algorithm and end up in people's feeds.
I checked out one of the accounts mentioned, mostly to check if I can discern fake accounts. The content is just still pictures. I'd dismiss those whether or not they're AI. Well, I'm not on TikTok anyway. This reminds me of some youtube videos when I was researching some stuff to buy. Those videos are just still images plus text-to-speech narration, usually with an annoying background music.
You are making yourself easier to fool: You don't know which fake accounts you overlooked, and by increasing your confidence you make yourself more vulnerable to them in the future.
As the submitter, I want to point out that I submitted this post with the original title. The one that makes it clear a16z are behind the social media astroturfing. The mods changed the title.
That’s fine, you did nothing wrong. I explained the title change here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46307121 . Edit: The community has spoken and I've come up with a way to include a16z in the title whilst keeping it under 80 chars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The demographics of who was online before the internet went mainstream matter a lot, here. It wasn't exactly a representative slice of the general population.
Forums were still going strong a decade after the Internet went mainstream. They only started to fade after smartphones took off and many forums took years to introduce mobile themes. For sports teams however, forums never faded, there tens of millions of users on team-specific soccer forums for example.
I think the general point stands when considering large-scale platforms.
Why isn't this company sued for computer fraud and abuse?
Because using the CFAA as a cudgel against things you don't like, whether it's journalists exposing insecure government systems, or companies engaging in deceptive marketing practices is a bad idea? For the latter, there's already laws against it that doesn't involve CFAA, eg. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B...
> Because using the CFAA as a cudgel against things you don't like, whether it's journalists exposing insecure government systems, or companies engaging in deceptive marketing practices is a bad idea?
I think you're confusing bad ethics with a bad idea. A prosecutor's job is to win, not behave ethically.
WTF happened to a16z? They used to be at the pinnacle of the VC sector, and now they seem to actively seek out the most toxic portcos possible.
WTF happened to a16z? They used to be at the pinnacle of the VC sector, and now they seem to actively seek out the most toxic portcos possible.
> Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades. Why stop now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about a few prison terms for conspiracy to defraud? And not for small fry like the "CEO" of this company either. Why not, say, 10 years for Marc Andreesen, personally? And, no, no "disrupting" it with serve-your-time-as-a-service, either.
I hate that Marc Andreesen' arc went from Mosaic to supervillain. It's easier to count billionaires who aren't supervillains. p.s. this is not a great photo of Marc on his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marc_Andreessen-9_(croppe...