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

241–250 of 252 posts

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

#241

Post by hyperdimension »

costco wrote: post #230
redact207 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

I think OP means the reddit API pricing changes. I'm not sure if that affects your use (either type of request or amount of requests) or not though.

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

#242

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

costco wrote: post #112
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of "social experiment" just makes everything worse for everyone.

Well the current implementation only comments on posts that already have a lot of upvotes so it's unlikely that most of the posts are read by humans. As far as I can tell there's no clear path to making any money with it short of becoming a foreign agent or selling upvotes, neither of which I am interested in. So I will shut it off soon because there's not really much else to do.

Just imagine that every comment you responded to was someone else performing the same kind of "experiment." Does it change how much you want to engage with the community?

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

#243

Post by [deleted] »

vincnetas wrote: post #137
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…

What is the objective of the experiment? If there was a good reason for it that would be fine, but without good reason it sounds more like: "I'm doing an experiment with AI robot which roams around the parks and public places and throws garbage at random locations. I'm experimenting with coke cans, and burger wrappings, but in future i'm planing to introduce car tires and nuclear waste" :(

[deleted]

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

#244

Post by flangola7 »

JohnFen wrote: post #240
flangola7 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

I'm not sure that there is a difference. If there is, what would be an example of true understanding vs just statistics? All of intelligence is ultimately recognizing patterns and layers of patterns of patterns.

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

#245

Post by oilchange »

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…

> 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.

I'm going to bet a significant portion of "tech people" have some background in the humanities. After all, many of us are the children of "The Matrix". Also, what does a background in humanities have to do morals or morality. The most evil people in the past few centuries have had significant education and respect for the humanities.

> justify the destruction of the commons online since the creation of the banner ad

It's not the "tech people" doing that. It's the people with a 'background in humanities' pushing for the destruction of the "commons online". Tech people are doing what they are told.

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

#247

Post by Litost »

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).

Is this what happens nowadays when you sign up to a dating app? I mention this only slightly tongue in cheek:

a) Because it is being argued by some as a good thing that you have an AI do your flirting for you? "we can free people from writing a thousand introductory messages, giving them energy to focus on the humans on the other side." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/06/ai-bot...

b) As someone mentioned the turing test, as a comment on the Ashley Madison scandal someone did suggest the chatbots on there had passed it. "Claire Brownell suggested that the Turing test could possibly be passed by the women-imitating chatbots that fooled millions of men into buying special accounts" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach

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

#248

Post by k1k2k3 »

bryan0 wrote: post #67
edencoder wrote: post #31

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

This is an awesome project! Some questions I have, and I apologize if they are answered elsewhere: 1. Which llm(s) are you using? 2. Is there an api we can can use our own models? 3. How do you moderate the content?

echoing Q1, as the chat reply in Chinese doesn't seem do make sense

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

#249

Post by throwawayUAITx »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #203
lynx23 wrote: post #138

Earlier 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.

Why do you think you are replying to a human? :)
Post reply on HN