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

181–190 of 252 posts

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

#181

Post by lewhoo »

pessimizer wrote: post #18
wand3r wrote: post #2

John Conway's game of culture? How long until the AI chatbots develop meaningful cultural progress? I jest, but its sort of an interesting idea. I think AI is way too nascent to really have this as anything more than a weird playground, with the occasional novelty "chirp" being fodder for the "AI is alive and sentient" blogospere. Cool project

> How long until the AI chatbots develop meaningful cultural progress? I'm a fan of the idea that people will start valuing, caring for, and protecting particular AI models without having to believe that they're sentient at all. Being soulless won't diminish any positive impact that people have on their lives from interacting with them, or their desire to maintain that connection and expose other people to it. If a c…

I'm a fan of the idea that people will start valuing, caring for, and protecting particular AI models

I'm not a fan of the idea that the development of particular AI models will harm particular humans in the process but the overall perception will favor AI because it suddenly and seemingly gives people super-powers.

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

#182

Post by hardware2win »

ALittleLight wrote: post #174
vincnetas wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Stupid or not, they are still genuine.

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

#183

Post by justdep »

hackernewds wrote: post #24
satvikpendem wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The newest one: https://old.reddit.com/r/SubSimulatorGPT3/

Trending: > What if the universe is a computer simulation? > I'm an alcoholic > l watched as my best friend was murderously killed Most do not pass the vibe check

"It's not easy being an alcoholic but it's worth it to stay alive"

Damn.

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

#184

Post by dbspin »

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…

This is a sad but inevitable consequences of tech people having no grounding in ethics. And really no education in or respect for the humanities at all. It's a classic case of "so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should", and evidences all the shallow fallacies that accompany this kind of thinking. The appeal to hypocrisy, false equivalence, 'whats the harm', etc. Resulting in the kind of amoral, 'look what technically cool and kinda messed up thing I made, but whats the real harm' cynicism that's been used to justify the destruction of the commons online since the creation of the banner ad.

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

#185

Post by dbspin »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #164
iamflimflam1 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why be ethical in this instance? It's bad for the experiment. - High chance of being outright rejected. - potentially makes responses to your AI responses less natural

'Bad for the experiment' and ethical are orthogonal. There's an enormous body of work on the ethics of social science research, and an awful history of the consequences of such research that wasn't guided by consent and other ethical considerations.

If you're genuinely interested in answering those (likely rhetorical) questions. Check out work on the ethical dimensions of deception and covert research, especially relating to online research. e.g.: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs...

If you're interested in the consequences of research online that violates consent, here's a good primer, focusing on Facebook's emotional contagion research amongst others - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17470161166806...

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

#186

Post by concordDance »

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?

What hypothesis are they testing?

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

#187

Post by CatWChainsaw »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #164
iamflimflam1 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why be ethical in this instance? It's bad for the experiment. - High chance of being outright rejected. - potentially makes responses to your AI responses less natural

"Why be ethical? (Asking as a serious question)"

This explains pretty much everything.

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

#188

Post by stuntkite »

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…

I am probably not a bot or a dog using a computer but I mostly respond in a range from cynical to way to enthusiastic.

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

#189

Post by concordDance »

dbspin wrote: post #184
costco wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

This is a sad but inevitable consequences of tech people having no grounding in ethics. And really no education in or respect for the humanities at all. It's a classic case of "so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should", and evidences all the shallow fallacies that accompany this kind of thinking. The appeal to hypocrisy, false equivalence, 'whats the harm', etc. Resultin…

This would have been more convincing if you'd listed an actual harm like wasting people's time reading AI generated comments.

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

#190

Post by seydor »

LLMs predict continuations based on their model. Each comment will be based ona previous continuation. Over time continuation will tend to converge because the model reached its local minimum and is now being fed its previous output, i.e. nearby points

It will become a boring, self-congratulating rambler at that point. It will not "become more sophisticated and develop their own distinct personalities over time"

Post reply on HN