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

201–210 of 252 posts

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

#201

Post by throwawaylinux »

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…

Ironically, I find this to be the height of elitism and disconnectedness with humanity, to believe that people need university education in "the humanities" to have a fully developed and grounded moral code and sense of ethics.

People who live "primitive" lifestyles who have zero academic education and have never heard of let alone from any "experts in humanities" can have a keen sense of what is fair, just, right, and wrong, empathy, etc. So can "tech people".

And students of humanities can be lacking all those things. I have my doubts that studying these things actually changes them significantly in a person, but would be really interested to be proven wrong about that. Certainly it is not necessary or sufficient to be an ethical person though.

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

#202

Post by [deleted] »

seszett wrote: post #128
kikokikokiko wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

[deleted]

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

#203

Post by FrustratedMonky »

lynx23 wrote: post #138
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…

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…

Dude, one guy helps explain the issue, shows how easy it is, and you think he is the risk? If something is so easy, how do think a hundred others aren't doing it, why criticize the one guy pointing it out.

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

#204

Post by FrustratedMonky »

lynx23 wrote: post #173
v3ss0n wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that was explicit, the experiment was to see if it would be caught. That was the test. Did you read it?

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

#205

Post by FrustratedMonky »

hnbad wrote: post #166
v3ss0n wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why you are gating and experiment?

This isn't an experiment any more than the fad of YouTubers doing "pranks" as "social experiments".

He had an idea, he wrote a test, he ran it, he provided results. What are you on about?

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

#206

Post by rhn_mk1 »

lynx23 wrote: post #138
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…

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…

There are plenty of bots on reddit. People are clearly not expecting only human replies.

Even if they were expecting only human replies, it's because humans is all that was available before. By this logic, there wouldn't be any acceptable place to introduce the first AI, because no one expected it.

I think what people expect and what people are fine with are two separate things.

And no, you can't always use the LLM interface yourself. Those are gated in different, stricter ways than reddit is.

There are plenty art projects which take human expression and mirror it, or transform it in a mechanical way. Are those also only contributing noise? Should those artists find another hobby?

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

#207

Post by FrustratedMonky »

dbspin wrote: post #185
Traubenfuchs wrote: post #164

Earlier 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

'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 rel…

[flagged]

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

#208

Post by FrustratedMonky »

stuntkite wrote: post #188
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.

I am also not a bot

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

#209

Post by FrustratedMonky »

heavyset_go wrote: post #136

Unleashing this would hasten the future where everyone has to scan their IDs to do anything online, because investors want to know how many real humans are using their companies' products. Same with advertisers.

This has already been happening, will happen more and more, and that result is coming.

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

#210

Post by dbspin »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #201
dbspin wrote: post #184

Earlier 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…

Ironically, I find this to be the height of elitism and disconnectedness with humanity, to believe that people need university education in "the humanities" to have a fully developed and grounded moral code and sense of ethics. People who live "primitive" lifestyles who have zero academic education and have never heard of let alone from any "experts in humanities" can have a keen sense of what is fair, just, right, a…

I agree. Please note I didn't mention anything about a university education.

You can absolutely teach yourself philosophy online based on freely available resources. You can also do introductory psychology and sociology courses from Ivy League institutions at zero cost - although more advanced work and lab research is harder to replicate without access to an institutional context. Also the curriculums do tend to be quite arbitrary and not so rounded - but that's in common with the US style of multidiciplinary undergraduate degree and specialise later.

Here are some resources that link to psych courses online - https://www.onlinepsychologydegree.info/10-places-to-find-fr...

Harvard Business school also offer some ethics courses, but these are quite business focused and don't provide a strong general grounding https://pll.harvard.edu/subject/ethics

Edinburgh universities free online MOOC is likely a better and more rounded introduction - https://www.ed.ac.uk/ppls/philosophy/research/impact/free-on...

To answer your broader point, you're confusing behaving in a commonsense moral or ethical way with understanding and reasoning from a grounding in ethics. I haven't suggested that studying ethics alone makes one virtuous, or that a lack of academic background precludes ethical behaviour. What I am suggesting - and I think your comment further evidences, is that a lack of interest and education in the (two thousand year long) tradition of thinking formally about ethical problems can ensure that our ethical decision making is arbitrary and reactive rather than rooted in our fundamental values. In other words, thinking and reading into this stuff doesn't replace your value system - it gives you a much richer understanding of how you've arrived at your values and can put them into practice.

Post reply on HN