Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Discovers Fake AI-Generated Profiles

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 219 posts

Re: Facebook Discovers Fake AI-Generated Profiles

#201

Post by colejohnson66 »

eivarv wrote: post #48
rvz wrote: post #5

And so it appears that the inevitable has 'finally happened'. Mark Zuckerberg's website is now a place not to be trusted as a source of news, finding friends and meeting others if there's a possibility of AI generated profiles being proliferated on the website. I've heard that meeting real humans outdoors makes it less likely to be deceived. Their authenticity is vouched via word of mouth and experience by other huma…

I don't think social media should ever be trusted as a source of news (by itself) – and frankly, I don't know many people who have seen Facebook as such.

I do know people.

Re: Facebook Discovers Fake AI-Generated Profiles

#202

Post by colejohnson66 »

sbarre wrote: post #183
nullbull wrote: post #159

Why take them down? That's someone's free speech right? This is what we're told about false information and political ads with outright lies in them, aren't we? Why would this be any different? Rather predictable that the "line" for taking something down suddenly appears when you're lying to Facebook. Lie to other users and it's fine... as long as you are a real commodity, ahem, I mean "person." Cease to lie in a way…

Facebook is a private enterprise. Free speech doesn't apply. Compliance with government/social pressure is what applies (for better or worse). That's the thing that so many people don't get.. Facebook is not a public space. You have no inherent rights there, and they can do whatever they want with your acccount/content/etc (or at least whatever their TOS says)..

No. The First Amendment doesn’t apply. The concept of free speech can be applied anywhere.

Re: Facebook Discovers Fake AI-Generated Profiles

#203

Post by mirimir »

dragonwriter wrote: post #190
mirimir wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Maybe this is a dumb question (having had no religious instruction) but do all modern Christians (except, I guess, some fundamentalists) understand that the Old Testament doesn't apply to them? If that's so, it seems like that stuff should be flagged somehow, to avoid misunderstandings. Or do some modern gentile Christians perhaps go further, and believe that the old Jewish ritual law was a misunderstanding,…

> Maybe this is a dumb question (having had no religious instruction) but do all modern Christians (except, I guess, some fundamentalists) understand that the Old Testament doesn't apply to them? I know of no modern Christian group that doesn't have a general understanding that the applicability of the OT law to Christians is, at a minimum, limited by the explicit terms of Acts 15. OTOH, there's obviously quite a bit…

Thank you.

> It's kind of (in general, not necessarily the specific passage in particular) the reason that the Catholic Church spent a very long time not being particularly happy with people without specific training reading the Bible themselves rather than going through tainted clergy as gatekeepers.

OK, that makes sense. There's some of that perspective in the sciences about misunderstanding of the literature.

Re: Facebook Discovers Fake AI-Generated Profiles

#204

Post by tripzilch »

dragonwriter wrote: post #145
lazysheepherd wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did not know about it, so just checked +20 different versions/translations[1] of the said verse in the bible, and scripture could not have been sharper and clearer on several points; - men who had sex with another men - should be killed - they deserve it Would you point me to a source/insight maybe? Else I will believe, that this is too, as I have witnessed countless times personally, nothing but an apologetic approa…

It says the same thing about men who have sex with their wives during the latter’s menstrual cycle, in the same chapter. OTOH, like virtually of the rest of the old testament statutes applicable to the Jewish people, these and most of the other prohibitions in that chapter and the surrounding ones is voided as to non-Jewish Christians (though one might infer from it a continuing prohibition on same sex marriage from…

.. so we should be thankful that there's even worse ideas in there that nobody is doing!

Re: Facebook Discovers Fake AI-Generated Profiles

#206

Post by sjg007 »

mathgenius wrote: post #81
nemild wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the scariest quotes for me was Facebook's Little Red Book in 2012 (a book handed out to every employee) that had this quote: > "When everyone has a printing press [i.e., Facebook], the ones with the best ideas are the ones people listen to." In retrospect, it gives a ton of insight into the flawed beliefs within the company. https://twitter.com/nemild/status/1006533287378968576 https://www.businessinsider.com/…

In the 1850's it was widely believed that the invention of the telegraph would bring about world peace. The problem is language itself . We trust it way too much to convey meaning, and truth. But it's just a delusion, or a mirage, in much the same way that the search for artificial intelligence is. In fact, I would say that language itself is the first AI invented.

The problem is that language is polymorphic.

Re: Facebook Discovers Fake AI-Generated Profiles

#207

Post by dragonwriter »

dragonwriter wrote: post #190
mirimir wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Maybe this is a dumb question (having had no religious instruction) but do all modern Christians (except, I guess, some fundamentalists) understand that the Old Testament doesn't apply to them? If that's so, it seems like that stuff should be flagged somehow, to avoid misunderstandings. Or do some modern gentile Christians perhaps go further, and believe that the old Jewish ritual law was a misunderstanding,…

> Maybe this is a dumb question (having had no religious instruction) but do all modern Christians (except, I guess, some fundamentalists) understand that the Old Testament doesn't apply to them? I know of no modern Christian group that doesn't have a general understanding that the applicability of the OT law to Christians is, at a minimum, limited by the explicit terms of Acts 15. OTOH, there's obviously quite a bit…

> rather than going through tainted clergy as gatekeepers.

“trained” rather than “tainted” was the intent here.

Re: Facebook Discovers Fake AI-Generated Profiles

#208

Post by sjg007 »

sherr wrote: post #144
GarrisonPrime wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the ancient Greeks were aware of the limitations and drawbacks of language. Rumor is some of the Spartans took it so far as to refuse to read or write, and even speak as spartan (heh) as possible.

Not only some Spartans. Socrates did not write anything down (Plato did that for him), thinking that writing was a poor way at finding out about the world e.g. https://newlearningonline.com/literacies/chapter-1/socrates-...

Is it your "thinking" Plato's ? Or Socartes? It's probably is better to QUESTION rather than form your own INTERPRETATION. At least a dialog is formed. Maybe the acients were more informed then we are.

Re: Facebook Discovers Fake AI-Generated Profiles

#209

Post by mirimir »

dragonwriter wrote: post #207
dragonwriter wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe this is a dumb question (having had no religious instruction) but do all modern Christians (except, I guess, some fundamentalists) understand that the Old Testament doesn't apply to them? I know of no modern Christian group that doesn't have a general understanding that the applicability of the OT law to Christians is, at a minimum, limited by the explicit terms of Acts 15. OTOH, there's obviously quite a bit…

> rather than going through tainted clergy as gatekeepers. “trained” rather than “tainted” was the intent here.

Yes, I figured that :)

But from the Protestants' perspective, "tainted" arguably works too.

Re: Facebook Discovers Fake AI-Generated Profiles

#210

Post by sbarre »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #202
sbarre wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is a private enterprise. Free speech doesn't apply. Compliance with government/social pressure is what applies (for better or worse). That's the thing that so many people don't get.. Facebook is not a public space. You have no inherent rights there, and they can do whatever they want with your acccount/content/etc (or at least whatever their TOS says)..

No. The First Amendment doesn’t apply. The concept of free speech can be applied anywhere.

That's extremely pedantic and doesn't really add to the discussion.

My point was that these private companies police their content based on the impact it has on their bottom line and any laws they have to respect, and that's it.

They don't do it to protect any kind of speech, groups or individuals, and no one has any rights (related to speech - yes AODA and other such legal rights apply), in the civic sense, when using Facebook or other social media platforms.

Post reply on HN