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

Dead Internet Theory

kudmitry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 735 posts

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#411

Post by Nevermark »

vladms wrote: post #363
Nevermark wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really isn’t that slop didn’t exist before. It is that it is increasingly becoming indistinguishable from not-slop. There is a different bar of believability for each of us. None of us are always right when we make a judgement. But the cues to making good calls without digging are drying up. And it won’t be long before every fake event has fake support for diggers to find. That will increase the time investment fo…

True for videos, but not true for any type of "text claim", which were already plenty 10 years ago and they were already hard to fight (think: misquoting people, strangely referring to science article, dubiously interpreting facts, etc.). But I would claim that "trusting blindly" was much more common hundreds of years ago than it is now, so we might make some progress in fact. If people learn to be more skeptical (be…

You are right that text had this problem.

But today’s text manufacturing isn’t our grand.., well yesterday’s text manufacturing.

And pretty soon it will be very persuasive models with lots of patience and manufactured personalized credibility and attachment “helping” people figure out reality.

The big problem isn’t the tech getting smarter though.

It’s the legal and social tolerance for conflict of interests at scale. Like unwanted (or dark pattern permissioned) surveillance which is all but unavoidable, being used to manipulate feeds controlled by third parties (between us and any organic intentioned contacts), toward influencing us in any way anyone will pay for. AI is just walking through a door that has been left wide open despite a couple decades of hard lessons.

Incentives, as they say, matter.

Misinformation would exist regardless, but we didn’t need it to be a cornerstone business model with trillions of dollars of market cap unifying its globally coordinated efficient and effective, near unavoidable, continual insertion into our and our neighbors lives. With shareholders relentlessly demanding double digit growth.

Doesn’t take any special game theory or economic theory to see the problematic loop there. Or to predict it will continue to get worse, and will be amplified by every AI advance, as long as it isn’t addressed.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#412

Post by postexitus »

makingstuffs wrote: post #120

Think the notion that ‘no one’ uses em dashes is a bit misguided. I’ve personally used them in text for as long as I can remember. Also on the phrase “you’re absolute right”, it’s definitely a phrase my friends and I use a lot, albeit in a sorta of sarcastic manner when one of us says something which is obvious but, nonetheless, we use it. We also tend to use “Well, you’re not wrong” again in a sarcastic manner for s…

found the LLM bot guys!

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#413

Post by petu »

bandrami wrote: post #309
krawcu wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's very easy to make a friend server that has all you basically need: sending messages, images/files and being able to talk with voice channels. you can also invite a music bot or host your own that will join the voice channel with a song that you requested

Right.... how is that different from IRC other than being controlled by a big company with no exit ability and (again) extremely tenuous privacy promises?

IRC doesn't offer voice/video, which is unimaginable for Discord alternative.

When we get to alternative proposals with functioning calls I'd say having them as voice channels that just exist 24/7 is a big thing too. It's a tiny thing from technical perspective, but makes something like Teams unsuitable alternative for Discord.

In Teams you start a call and everyone phone rings, you distract everyone from whatever they were doing -- you better have a good reason for doing so.

In Discord you just join empty voice channel (on your private server with friends) w/o any particular reason and go on with your day. Maybe someone sees that you're there and joins, maybe not. No need to think of anyone's schedule, you don't annoy people that don't have time right now.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#414

Post by hayinneedles »

meander_water wrote: post #294

Not foolproof, but a couple of easy ways to verify if images were AI generated: - OpenAI uses the C2PA standard [0] to add provenance metadata to images, which you can check [1] - Gemini uses SynthId [2] and adds a watermark to the image. The watermark can be removed, but SynthId cannot as it is part of the image. SynthId is used to watermark text as well, and code is open-source [3] [0] https://help.openai.com/en/ar…

Reminder that provenance exists to prove something as REAL, not to prove something is fake.

AI content outnumbers Real content. We are not going to decide if every single thing is real or not. C2PA is about labeling the gold in a way the dirt can't fake. A Photo with it can be considered real and used in an encyclopedia or sent court without people doubting it.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#415

Post by optimalsolver »

gmuslera wrote: post #26

In one hand, we are past the Turing Test definition if we can't distinguish if we are talking with an AI or a real human or more things that were rampant on internet previously, like spam and scam campaigns, targeted opinion manipulation, or a lot of other things that weren't, let's say, an honest opinion of the single person that could be identified with an account. In the other hand, that we can't tell don't speak…

on one hand

on the other hand

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#416

Post by mxkopy »

self_awareness wrote: post #395
mxkopy wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they’re just saying we should interpret this video in a way that’s consistent with known historical facts. On one hand, it’s not depicting events that are strictly untrue, so we shouldn’t discredit it. On the other hand, since the video itself is literally fake, when we discredit it we shouldn’t accidentally also discredit the events it’s depicting.

Are you saying that if there is 1 instance of a true event, then fake videos done in a similar way as this true event is rational and needed?

The insinuation that racism in the US is not systemic reeks of ignorance

Edit: please, prove your illiteracy and lack of critical thinking skills in the comments below

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#417

Post by jaccola »

gmuslera wrote: post #26

In one hand, we are past the Turing Test definition if we can't distinguish if we are talking with an AI or a real human or more things that were rampant on internet previously, like spam and scam campaigns, targeted opinion manipulation, or a lot of other things that weren't, let's say, an honest opinion of the single person that could be identified with an account. In the other hand, that we can't tell don't speak…

But that’s not the Turing Test. The human who can be fooled in the Turing test was explicitly called the “interrogator”.

To pass the Turing test the AI would have to be indistinguishable from a human to the person interrogating it in a back and forth conversation. Simply being fooled by some generated content does not count (if it did, this was passed decades ago).

No LLM/AI system today can pass the Turing test.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#418

Post by pjc50 »

quantummagic wrote: post #201
seiferteric wrote: post #116

My parents were tricked the other day by a fake youtube video of "racist cop" doing something bad and getting outraged by it. I watch part of the video and even though it felt off I couldn't immediately tell for sure if it was fake or not. Nevertheless I googled the names and details and found nothing but repostings of the video. Then I looked at the youtube channel info and there it said it uses AI for "some" of the…

As they say, the demand for racism far outstrips the supply. It's hard to spend all day outraged if you rely on reality to supply enough fodder.

Wrong takeaway. There are plenty of real incidents. The reason for posting fake incidents is to discredit the real ones.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#419

Post by [deleted] »

forgotpwd16 wrote: post #408
amrocha wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re absolutely right—lots of very smart people use em dashes. Thank you for correcting me on that!

If you want next, I can: - Tell you what makes em dashes appealing. - Help you use em dashes more. - Give you other grammatical quirks smart people have. Just tell me. (If bots RP as humans, it’s only natural we start RP as bots. And yes, I did use a curly quote there.)

[deleted]

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#420

Post by input_sh »

raincole wrote: post #307
ryanjshaw wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m spending way too much time on the RealOrAI subreddits these days. I think it scares me because I get so many wrong, so I keep watching more, hoping to improve my detection skills. I may have to accept that this is just the new reality - never quite knowing the truth.

Those subreddits label content wrong all the time. Some of top commentors are trolling (I've seen one cooking video where the most voted comment is "AI, the sauce stops when it hits the plate"... as thick sauce should do.) You're training yourself with a very unreliable source of truth.

> Those subreddits label content wrong all the time.

Intentionally if I might add. Reddit users aren't particularly interested in providing feedback that will inevitably be used to make AI tools more convincing in the future, nobody's really moderating those subs, and that makes them the perfect target for poisoning via shitposting in the comments.

Post reply on HN