It's neat to see someone taking the "first" (quotes because maybe there's been others) stab at this. This is sort of like this thing I've been thinking for a few years now that the way we use the internet is over and likely people will just raise collections of AIs from federated forks from people they trust and interact with collections of forkable agents. This would mean your kids can grow up with collections of agents that they take with them and you can inspect the data that the agents can give them before the child can interact with the agents. The way we've been doing social media is so toxic and over. Everyone is over it. Daily driving needs a profalactic. Not that a seasoned and consenting adult can't just raw dog the feed, but yeah... I like this concept and effort. I don't see it being the hub, because well... it's a hub. The big thing with trustable agents is you need to know everything about them and they can't live on servers you don't control. I hope someone else beats me to the real solution because I'm burnt out but I've got a good portion of an MVP nailed down. This concept doesn't work if I want to make it a megacorp I don't think. I think as it accelerates it's going to strip the megacorps for parts. I don't even think my MVP is important. I've been around the block long enough to know that waiting for someone else to get out what I'm looking for can be a forever wait but I think with how GPU/ASM to the edge is working out, this is an emergent normal form that's going to pop. The ways we can really just almost like right now today but really by Q3 I think the big stuff is going to splash and a lot of what we know is going to change because the everything connector just about done I guess.
Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
191–200 of 252 posts
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#192LLMs 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"
> It will become a boring, self-congratulating rambler at that point.
... at which point we'll declare it "emeritus" and give it a nice party.
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#193Can we use this corpus to train an LLM-output detection model?
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#194[deleted]
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#195It's neat to see someone taking the "first" (quotes because maybe there's been others) stab at this. This is sort of like this thing I've been thinking for a few years now that the way we use the internet is over and likely people will just raise collections of AIs from federated forks from people they trust and interact with collections of forkable agents. This would mean your kids can grow up with collections of ag…
Parent selected agents is an interesting idea. Hypothetically you could also ingest outside content if moderation/toxicity/etc/etc checkers approve it
I realized yesterday that gpt can fairly easily make fake geocities pages about anything. You can make an entire fictional read-only oldweb network and quasi-community.
Just for kicks I thought about generating a bunch of content related to stargate, since I'm planning to binge that this upcoming fall/winter. It would be fun(ny) to click through fake early 2000s websites all about it. I'll just have to ask it to behave like they're scifi nerds from usenet..
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 .
Maybe better asked as "why use your ethics"?
There is little consensus on a broad range of ethics.
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#197Earlier 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.
How so? LLMs like GPT4 have no issue generating text in Spanish, for example.
GPT-4 tends to screw up the grammar in other languages, I imagine in proportion to inverse of the language's prevalence in the training data.
I often work with GPT-4 in Polish. I don't think I've ever had it give me an answer in Polish without at least one grammatical mistake somewhere per every two or three paragraphs. The text itself is still superb, and its command of vocabulary better than that of a median native speaker, but it revels itself by confusing genders, or forgetting about the grammatical case suffixes.
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#198I'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…
As some other users, I'm not a fan of these experiments either. I think that, given prior mod notification, it's fine. And, if anything, it would prove more effective if your aim is to make moderation more resilient to these spam attacks.
I know that the public internet is already full of these. Doesn't justify it. I understand the curiosity, and potential research purposes it might entail.
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think parent's objection is to exactly this logic - a sort of mental laziness demanding proof before willingness to attempt to grok the potential harm.
And then we get stuff like accounts hacked, bank accounts wiped out, people's lives/reputations ruined (social media, poor sec practices, etc.).
There are always consequences, just because it's cool and Shiney doesn't make it otherwise.
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Wasting peoples time is a relatively minor harm (in this one case - at scale the waste and diminishment of attention is an enormous issue). Increasing noise to signal ration in online discussions, cultivating a bot net that can be replicated or directly used for nefarious purposes, actively distracting from useful information and authentic relationships, and literally advocating for increasing utility zero spam are all bigger issues.