141–150 of 165 posts
Talk about burying the lede! Near the bottom of the story the site owner confirms that it was him that added the backdated AI comments (perhaps it should have been obvious...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100%. So far (thankfully) I've noticed this stuff get voted down on social media but it is blowing my mind people think pasting in a ChatGPT response is productive. I've seen people on reddit say stuff like "I don't know but here's what ChatGPT said." Or worse, presenting ChatGPT copy-paste as their own. Its funny because you can tell, the text reads like an HR person wrote it.
I've noticed the opposite actually, clearly ChatGPT written posts on Reddit that get a ton of upvotes. I'm especially noticing it on niche subreddits. The ones that make me furious are on some of the mental health subreddits. People are asking for genuine support from other people, but are getting AI slop instead. If someone needs support from an AI (which I've found can actually help), they can go use it themselves.
You should have a lot less confidence in your ability to discern what's AI generated content, honestly. Especially in such contexts where the humans will likely be writing very non-offensive in order to not-trigger the OP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ars Technica started with comms forums + this new idea to report tech news. The forums are still there but not nearly the camaraderie of the early days.
It's been a long time since I visited the Ars forums, but the news article commenters today are absolutely deranged. It makes me want to not engage with the forums again.
Money quote: > There’s also a social contract: when we create an account in an online community, we do it with the expectation that people we are going to interact with are primarily people. Oh, there will be shills, and bots, and advertisers, but the agreement between the users and the community provider is that they are going to try to defend us from that, and that in exchange we will provide our engagement and con…
Well, the end of open, public UGC content anyway. I have heard of Discord servers where admins won't assign you roles giving you access to all channels unless you've personally met them, someone in the group can vouch for you, or you have a video chat with them and "verify." This is the future. We need something like Discord that also has a webpage-like mechanism built into it (a space for a whole collection of docum…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much of the benefit I get from LLMs is, ironically, avoiding LLM output from the results of web searches.
How do you do that, if you don't mind sharing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, I'm the same, and I love my LLMs. They're fun and interesting to talk to and use, but it's obvious to everyone that they're not very reliable. If I think an article is LLM-generated, then the signal I'm getting is that the author is just as clueless as I am, and there's no way I can trust that any of the information is correct.
> but it's obvious to everyone that they're not very reliable. Hopefully to everyone on HN, but definitely not to everyone on the greater Internet. There are plenty of horror stories of people who apparently 100% blindly trust whatever ChatGPT says.
It makes perfect intuitive sense if you don't know how the things actually work.