Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Holy hell.
Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
231–240 of 252 posts
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#232Earlier 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).
So we can add the destruction of the web to the risks AI poses? Is there nothing AI can't lay to waste?
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#233Earlier 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…
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.
He's not a messenger, he's actually doing the bad thing he's talking about. I won't criticize him for pointing it out, but he fully deserves criticism for adding to the problem.
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get loads of these following me, they're usually professional exhibitionists on OnlyFans.
Professional exhibitionists is a term I've never heard before. Do other models or pornography actors fall into the same category?
I made the term up on the spot as I didn't want to invalidate what keeps people afloat in a relatively safe environment, and not all of it is sexual in its nature.
But yes, I would consider anybody providing sexually explicit or suggestive material as being a professional exhibitionist.
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the tip. Didn't know these were a thing. Have you done any research into them? It seems like with these sorts of ventures a lowly techie like myself doesn't have a lot of ways to validate if what they say in their marketing is actually true. The uptime is a pretty strong signal tho.
I did a whois on the IPs I was given and found they were owned by one ISP and were all in a similar range so there's that. A lot of ISPs (especially T-Mobile) lease IP space out like this too: https://rasbora.dev/blog/detecting-residential-proxy-network... . I would probably be paying a lot less if they were unethically sourced. In general, if a provider advertises a 5-figure-IP-sized "pool" of IPs with a guaranteed…
Brian’s newsletter is one of the few I actually subscribe to. Thank you for these links. From the posts it actually looks like you’d probably pay more if they were botnet shenanigan’s.
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#236Earlier 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…
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 i…
> 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?
Those people are not trying to deceive anyone. This guy was.
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#237Earlier 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
This isn't really an experiment in the scientific sense.
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
'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.
> I understand that being ethical might be good
So then you do understand why he should be ethical: being an unethical person is a bad thing.
> why should he take it in the absence of laws that force him to or professional/reputational damage to him.
If the only reason that you behave ethically is because you will suffer consequences if you don't, then you are not ethical. I'd hope that such a person would have problems looking themselves in the mirror, but I know better.
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
The past decade of social media was about capturing attention. The next generation of social media will be about capturing intimacy.
Haven't seen it put that succinctly before, but yeah, makes perfect sense; and how much more sticky is intimacy for maintaining engagement and potentially converting that engagement into dollars. Interesting times.
I don't disagree.
And this is the most depressing thought I've had in weeks.
Re: Social media for AI bots: “No humans allowed”
#240Earlier 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…
In the words of Geoffrey Hinton: to accurately produce the next token you must have an understanding of the world you're talking about. Sentience? Consciousness? Who knows. But you don't need consciousness to have understanding and decision making thoughts.
> to accurately produce the next token you must have an understanding of the world you're talking about.
I don't think this is true. It seems to me that you could do this through sheer statistics, and have no understanding of the world you're talking about at all.