Live data from Hacker News

Fake Books

lcamtuf.substack.com

181–190 of 371 posts

Re: Fake Books

#181
A lot of this hinges on fake reviews. It seems like it should be a solvable problem, but then I read about things like scammers going so far as to actually order their bogus products to real addresses of unsuspecting people (not caring what the confused recipients do with it) just so they can get a "verified purchase" review. Maybe they get caught, but by then, the damage is done.

I bought an electric leaf blower off amazon a couple years ago - the reviews seemed authentic and it seemed like the obvious one to buy. The thing had the power of like two hair dryers - I took the time to write a negative review but by then the product no longer seemed to be listed.

Re: Fake Books

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think NKRFZ had a video about a weird genre of pro-war fiction that is published en mass in Russia and promoted quite alot, but which does not really sell.

That assumes selling is the point. What if drowning out other voices is the real goal?

Then they're doing a bad job at it :)

Re: Fake Books

#183
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why they don't fix this problem. Because they act as a platform an the platform makes a living by its transactions and not by the quality of the content.

But there are other platforms out there (especially for books) that people will prefer if they make it easier to find high-quality content. I’m with the poster you replied to; it would make sense for Amazon to go after these fake products.

It's a particularly bad problem for books, but it's a problem for every product category. Unless Amazon sees people abandoning them in large numbers (personally, I haven't ordered from them in years) they're not going to change.

Re: Fake Books

#185
It reads like a lot of the auto-generated content / Amazon affiliate link farms that google ranks so highly when I search for product reviews.

Everything is awful online nowadays.

Re: Fake Books

#186
And this is how publishers/publishing houses stand to gain a renewed relevance in a world of self publishing and digital platform technologies.

Re: Fake Books

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article literally says Yes, and the parent literally generalizes this one-off observation, puts it in context, and gives examples and even a source with a deep dive on the issue.

I don't understand how you think this is responsive to the issue of fabrication. The article already considered the possibility of the human content farm and concluded it was unlikely on the basis of information that was completely fabricated. The fact that the commenter proceeded to generalize, show a link, etc is not responsive to that. A responsive answer would be along the lines of "well, a content farm might fab…

Well, it's "responsive" for me. In fact it's your comment that was off-topic and meta, the parent was perfectly on topic and responding on the issue.

>A responsive answer would be along the lines of "well, a content farm might fabricate too because _____."

A responsive answer doesn't need to have a particular formula, much less that one. It just needs to be relevant to the issue and provide more information and/or the commentor's own take (could be just their feelings about the issue too).

Re: Fake Books

#188
post #171
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you find that interesting, you might find this interesting" seems like a perfectly reasonable motivation for an HN comment. I think it's worth forgiving that and enjoying the broader horizons rather than treating HN threads as a way for lots of smart people to try and craft the most definitive statement about one narrow issue, while policing any deviation therefrom.

> "If you find that interesting, you might find this interesting" seems like a perfectly reasonable motivation for an HN comment. But that's not the form of the comment. It begins with "I think there’s a good chance it was ghost written by a content farm"!

yes, so? can't we parse beyond the opening statement of the comment, and see the rest of its content?

can't a comment not reiterate in its opening statement what the author already said (to e.g. show the commentor's aggrement)?

this is too formulaic and pedantic a response

Re: Fake Books

#189
post #136

> I soon discovered that all the books leaned on the same central argument: value is an inherent consequence of scarcity. My rebuttal to that was simple: it’s an exception, not a rule. My kids’ doodles are scarce, but in a gallery, they wouldn’t fetch much Well, how about "value is an inherent consequence of scarcity with respect to demand"?

Author seems to understand supply and demand — they are making the point that the NFT perspective doesn’t include a rationale for demand.

Demand doesn't need to have a rationale (in the sense of "real needs" or "utility value" or something of the like) to work in raising value. It just needs to exist!

Re: Fake Books

#190
I disagree with the author on the below: >With GPT-3, we now have an infinitely-scalable technology that is years away from being able to enrich our lives, but is already more than capable of drowning out all remnants of authentic content on the internet. And because you can leverage this to earn money or sway opinions, that outcome is probably hard to avoid.

I can't speak for GPT-3 specifically as I haven't spent enough time with it, but it's open equivalent Bloom is very useful today. Author says it is far from being able to "enrich our lives". I think otherwise. The whole "AI revolution" definitely did enrich my life. It renewed my passion for programming in general. The possibilities are truly endless. From translation, to content summarisation and search. Then it is only a step away from enriching other people's lives with products that make them more productive, help them in execution of mundane tasks etc.

I think AIs like bloom will in not to distant time allow us to fix the Internet to how it was before all the shitty content generation replaced genuine content in Google for example.

Also, there is a huge potential to improve our understanding of what it means to think and understand complex concepts. For the very first time we have something that comes very close to such understanding. Something that doesn't have feelings, it can be cut, modified, transformed and studied in myriad of different ways.

Also, believe me when I say the next AI revolution will be with models like Bloom that will be able to run on the edge. This is currently impossible due to their size, but it is very likely we'll find methods to optimise them significantly.

Then there is potential application of such models to decision making. I bet there is ongoing research in that field right now.

Addressing the negative side, "ability to generate garbage content that looks good". The ability has already existed for advanced adversaries. Hostile nations can simply employ people to "generate content". Smaller players have lots of other (inferior) tools. Their content doesn't have to fool people most of the time. It just has to fool various algorithms. Even without advanced AI models the search engines and social networks have been loosing badly in this fight. Existence of those tools will improve the bad actors capabilities, but it will also give good actors the chance to innovate with something new.

Post reply on HN