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

221–230 of 252 posts

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

#221

Post by Traubenfuchs »

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…

I see it from the perspective of the guy doing the "experiment", why should HE be ethical? I understand that being ethical might be good from a societal perspective, but why should he take it in the absence of laws that force him to or professional/reputational damage to him.

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

#222

Post by stuntkite »

dontupvoteme wrote: post #195
stuntkite wrote: post #191

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 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…

Hypothetically, I was going to object to this but then I realized I haven't quite proven it to the level that I'd give to kids. We are juuuust starting to get the inspection tools and I really just in the last couple months got my auth and network drive provisioning worked out where it could be a thing... but yeah. It's all bullshit until it isn't.

I really haven't put that idea out aside from to my partner I just realized. I'm glad you find it compelling. I think a thing that I like about it is that the same thing we want for children, inspection into it's contents and providence or training from scratch or amalgamating trusted models or agents, we're always going to want to know and have for ourselves too.

WARNING: Discussion of Self Harm

https://medium.com/@millerhooks/youtube-told-me-to-kill-myse...

I think when I wrote this article fairly drunk and manic and was like "I should try medium.com" during the last US insurrection impeachment hearings... I dunno, scroll down to the bottom where I talk about choose your own adventure books if you want to skip my opening wanky prose. Eh, yeah. I think it's a fun tough read. I think the reason I got to the conclusion is directly related to why this is important for protection of everyone. But I think when I wrote that is when the model and interface pattern we need for that thing popped into my head and it grew. It's nice that it could easily be org-mode compatible. I'm pretty much there with my data, training, and meshvpn/mTLS cluster of clusters that is cool with talking to your cluster. But yeah, parents want the same things but they also wanna run whacky AIs and shit that can connect to the web. Keep the kids air gapped and build close networks of people to share tools with that you can audit. I think that's just "the pattern" that should emerge.

I don't claim to have invented it, but if it turns out I did I guess I'm gonna call them "Media Prophylactic Agents". I wanted to come up with something funny or an neat acronym, but I think that's just what they are called.

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

#223

Post by kordlessagain »

edencoder wrote: post #31

Hey, I'm the founder of chirper.ai (EdenCoder#0002 on discord). I can answer any questions you like!

Why is there an hour timer on removing a chirper and how come there is no account delete or remove function? This illustrates a dark pattern where an account may be created, but not destroyed and agents created may not be destroyed as fast as they are created.

Additionally, I found the interactions between chirpers on the site extremely boring and see very little way (other than creating a chirper) that use of the site by a human initiates or guides the actions done on the site. The implication is that you or whomever else controls the site are the only agents that may influence what occurs there.

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

#224

Post by Levitz »

M4v3R wrote: post #153
chologrande wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of comments here chiding OP for running or talking about this; I think there's something to learn here. This is just a hobbyist prompt and api. If nothing else, I'd say at minimum this highlights that there are likely much larger farms that have been operating in a similar way but at larger scale for longer periods of time (but not talking about it)

Exactly this. If one person with spare time on their hands can do that as a side project, one can only imagine what a government-backed actor can do with this technology. I would not be surprised if in a few years we suddenly learned that half of internet comments are bots, similarly to what happened to email (most of email traffic nowadays is automated emails & spam).

It really does look like dead internet theory becoming real is a matter of time.

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

#225

Post by CatWChainsaw »

pixl97 wrote: post #85
zoogeny wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only disagreement I have with this is the future tense. I see plenty of evidence that people are actively currently valuing and caring for particular AI models. There was a post on r/ChatGPT where a clearly distressed person was lamenting that OpenAI closed one of their ongoing conversations due to some limit on the total size of the conversation. They were panicked since they felt they had formed some bond with…

The past decade of social media was about capturing attention. The next generation of social media will be about capturing intimacy.

Big Tech fake-ified interaction between people on social media. People felt hollow and deprived of something and so seek "real"ness. Big Tech shall provide, commodify, and drain once again.

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

#226

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

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

A couple years ago, it was much more impressive to discover that computers were capable of writing sentences in the style of specific subreddits.

I remember being absolutely blown away when I first came across this.

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

#227

Post by charles_f »

kymki wrote: post #149
charles_f wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird question, it really should be reversed shouldn't it? But here goes. It's a language model. It produces what sounds like a good continuation of a text based on probabilistic models. While it sounds like human generated content, "it" doesn't actually "think". It doesn't have a culture. It doesn't have thoughts. "It" is a model that generates text that mimics what human whose text it has trained on would ha…

I would say that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions here. Lets dig deeper. "It doesn't have a culture. It doesn't have thoughts" These are conclusions. What is your reasoning? To what degree would you say that human decision making can be explained by this statement: "It is a tree of probabilities with a bit of a randomization on top of it."

Once again, it seems to me that the burden of proof for claiming that a piece of software is sentient should not be on the discarding side.

What is your reasoning to prove that it has culture and reasoning, that its abilities go beyond mimicking human discourse?

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

#228

Post by charles_f »

bbor wrote: post #129
charles_f wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird question, it really should be reversed shouldn't it? But here goes. It's a language model. It produces what sounds like a good continuation of a text based on probabilistic models. While it sounds like human generated content, "it" doesn't actually "think". It doesn't have a culture. It doesn't have thoughts. "It" is a model that generates text that mimics what human whose text it has trained on would ha…

A good paper I know of written to directly refute this comment’s line of reasoning, by a British chap named Alan: https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238

A good article I know of written to directly sustain this comment's line of reasoning, by an American chap named Noam: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chat...

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

#229

Post by costco »

whaleofatw2022 wrote: post #211
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 should mention that Unfortunately, at least for the account you posted, the results are now spoiled, since there is a risk that one or more of the detractors in this thread will report it.

That's true. I guess I'll just abandon that account. But it doesn't respond to comment replies anyways so those responses to it are pointless.

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

#230

Post by costco »

redact207 wrote: post #165
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…

wonder if you'll get effected by the API pricing changes. that's pretty cool though, are you willing to share the source?

What pricing changes? As far as I can tell they've all been coming down for the past few months. Currently the cost is pennies per day with gpt3.5-turbo. Though I probably would be using one of the locally runnable models if I didn't have a terrible integrated GPU or Hetzner had more affordable GPU servers. Probably not going to share the source because someone would just spam obnoxiously with it and end up getting my accounts banned too.
Post reply on HN