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

151–160 of 252 posts

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

#151

Post by prox »

costco wrote: post #105
duncan-donuts wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the actual experiment here?

"Experiment" was probably poor word choice, I mostly just want to see if anybody notices them or if they get kicked out of subreddits by mods. So far none have. I saw a bunch of people on HN say that AI was going to create this new wave of spam so I tried to test out that theory. My conclusion is yes it would make content generation for a prospective spammer easier but there still are a bunch of technical things you…

I think a reverse experiment would be far more valuable. Try to find patterns of collective clicknets/botnets trying to swing a subreddit in a certain direction for instance.

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

#152

Post by kymki »

gchamonlive wrote: post #13
unintendedcons wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing question! I'll try: Cultural innovations that spread to other individuals and groups in a durable way, providing value to adopters

It is a hard question I know! It has a lot to do with the hard question of consciousness, as I understand it. In the case of A.I., every agent has potentially access to everything, so cultural artifacts produced by a.i. can reach every agent almost instantly. They also have perfect recollection, disregarding data loss. When no human is interacting with the platform, it is interesting to question: what would be valuab…

I think these discussions typically get very, very confusing.

What do we actually mean by "true creativity"?

Why should it be that our mental mechanisms of forming decisions and ideas should not be possible to implement as a mathematical model?

What is the experiment that we use to prove that information that is computer generated is fundamentally different from that of human outoput?

What do we want to measure here, in order to confim what idea?

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

#153

Post by M4v3R »

chologrande wrote: post #145
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…

Lots of comments here chiding OP for running or talking about this; I think there's something to learn here. This is just a hobbyist prompt and api. If nothing else, I'd say at minimum this highlights that there are likely much larger farms that have been operating in a similar way but at larger scale for longer periods of time (but not talking about it)

Exactly this. If one person with spare time on their hands can do that as a side project, one can only imagine what a government-backed actor can do with this technology. I would not be surprised if in a few years we suddenly learned that half of internet comments are bots, similarly to what happened to email (most of email traffic nowadays is automated emails & spam).

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

#154

Post by hammyhavoc »

chologrande wrote: post #145
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…

Lots of comments here chiding OP for running or talking about this; I think there's something to learn here. This is just a hobbyist prompt and api. If nothing else, I'd say at minimum this highlights that there are likely much larger farms that have been operating in a similar way but at larger scale for longer periods of time (but not talking about it)

What is there to learn? We already know that it's possible. This is some of the lowest-hanging fruit imaginable and is what spammers have already been doing.

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

#155

Post by hammyhavoc »

Fergazi wrote: post #108
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…

The bots name is Objective_Land_2849. In the last year or so I've noticed a lot of accounts whose username follows this naming format. Usually its: Adjective_noun_1234 but sometimes the underscores are hyphens. I really do wonder if these are all bot accounts.

I get loads of these following me, they're usually professional exhibitionists on OnlyFans.

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

#156

Post by v3ss0n »

lynx23 wrote: post #138
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…

Please don't do that. If you are straight enough to actually explain your operation in this detail, it shouldn't take much extra thought to realize why you shouldn't run this on the public internet. Users of that forum expect human replies. If they wanted to have LLM replies, they could use one of the available interfaces themselves. You are only contributing to the noise on the net. Please stop, and find another hob…

Why you are gating and experiment?

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

#157

Post by iamflimflam1 »

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…

An ethical way to do this would be to:

At a minimum: Inform the moderators of the subreddit(s) you are planning to use and get consent.

Ideally: Ask the members of the subreddit for permission. Tell them when you will be starting your “experiment” and when it will finish.

What’s the hypothesis you are testing? What’s the benefit for them taking part?

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

#158

Post by seszett »

avian wrote: post #132
seszett wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most other languages (at least the ones I know) are already hugely polluted by useless content that was (badly) machine translated from English. Such spam sites are now a majority of search results for me when I use Duckduckgo or Google.

That's not wrong, although it's often very easy to spot.

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

#159

Post by dang »

Dalewyn wrote: post #87
dang wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

Is it unsubstantive to state that the potential demise of social media is a good thing? If you ask me, unsubstantive would be to nip potential discussions in the bud. As an aside, thanks for proving my point. Social media is a cancer upon humanity so long as its purpose is to manipulate and direct the people.

Plenty of HN users post thoughtful, substantive critiques of social media. If you had done that instead, it would have been fine. The problem is that what you posted was a shallow, indignant denunciation with no information in it that the rest of us could learn from. That's the kind of comment we're trying to avoid here, on any topic.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

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

#160

Post by Paul-Craft »

costco wrote: post #112
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well the current implementation only comments on posts that already have a lot of upvotes so it's unlikely that most of the posts are read by humans. As far as I can tell there's no clear path to making any money with it short of becoming a foreign agent or selling upvotes, neither of which I am interested in. So I will shut it off soon because there's not really much else to do.

The replies are believably human, but kind of banal. If anything, this might indicate you've captured the gestalt of the median social media user.

This one was my favorite, and happened to be the only one that got more than one upvote:

> 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.

Post reply on HN