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

171–180 of 252 posts

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

#171

Post by hnlmorg »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #126
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The only datasets that will be useful to train LLMs in the future will be the ones generated before 2022. Any content generated after this date will be analogous to steel forged after 1945, it will be inevitably contaminated by the "radioactivity" of LLMs. The good news is that the availability of data to train more and more powerful models will soon be gone, the bad news is it will take the internet as we know it wi…

As someone who has moderated several popular message boards over the years, I can assure you that the problem of machine generated spam is nearly as old as HTML itself.

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

#172

Post by [deleted] »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #62

I don’t think social media is going to survive AI, at least not in its current form. It’s not just going to take a blow from the AI content production that’s on the horizon but also AI engagement. Pretty much all of the signals social media platforms use to automate curation of content are about to turn into noise against the backdrop of nearly every participant in the social network being both incentivized and capab…

[deleted]

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

#173

Post by lynx23 »

v3ss0n wrote: post #156
lynx23 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because it is unsolicited LLM spam, not an "experiment". The "experiment" seems to be if they get caught doing it, or not.

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

#174

Post by ALittleLight »

vincnetas wrote: post #137
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…

What is the objective of the experiment? If there was a good reason for it that would be fine, but without good reason it sounds more like: "I'm doing an experiment with AI robot which roams around the parks and public places and throws garbage at random locations. I'm experimenting with coke cans, and burger wrappings, but in future i'm planing to introduce car tires and nuclear waste" :(

The comments are above the level of the median redditor, I don't see a problem with it.

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

#175

Post by AlecSchueler »

rashkov wrote: post #125
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…

This one is kind of hilarious: “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.”

Are spoons and thimbles tiny versions of other things though?

Even shot glasses, while you could see them as small versions of regular glasses, they're the normal size for what they're designed to contain (a shot).

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

#176

Post by AlecSchueler »

hammyhavoc wrote: post #155
Fergazi wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Professional exhibitionists is a term I've never heard before. Do other models or pornography actors fall into the same category?

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

#177

Post by ALittleLight »

hnbad wrote: post #167
thdespou wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. Flood Reddit with idiotic comments to make the platform even worse.

What makes you think they only do this on Reddit? Surely since they don't disclose this one on Reddit, that means they wouldn't disclose here if they did the same with HN. Even if it's not them, surely the idea isn't unique enough that nobody else might do this.

You should absolutely assume that people are running bots on hackernews. The technology exists. I don't think it would even be that hard. I expect I could have a functional prototype in an hour (puppeteer to run a browser, simple Markov Chain to guide actions through states, hit OpenAI's endpoints for completions using OP's prompt slightly modified for hn). Long term, you could refine this with a locally running model that you fine tuned on comments (plus measures to avoid bot detection).

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

#180

Post by danielbln »

dieortin wrote: post #144
pessimizer wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually want that kind of AI, as long as I'm in control of it and it runs locally. I want a great foreign language tutor. I want an assistant who will figure out what I should be doing today to work towards the things that I want. Why wouldn't I? And there's no way you get those things without creating some kind of dependence. The more transparent AI is, the more I can train it and tune it myself, the more it will…

Do you really want to give an AI control of your future?

We already give a fair amount of control of our future over to a variety of systems. As long as the AI system is under full control, operated safely/locally and seen not as a boss, but an assistant or advisor, I see no issue with that.
Post reply on HN