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

AI Resistance: some recent anti-AI stuff that’s worth discussing

stephvee.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–439 of 439 posts

Re: AI Resistance: some recent anti-AI stuff that’s worth discussing

#431

Post by suzzer99 »

teddyh wrote: post #423
suzzer99 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years ago, wecame up with the name of a fake game on here and made a bunch of comments about it, in attempt to poison future AI models. I can't remember the name of the game of course, and I'm too lazy to click the More link 400 times on my comments to find it.

The name was “Qwitzatteracht”: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36191638 >

ChatGPT Fail

> It sounds like you’re thinking of Kwisatz Haderach from Dune.

> The spelling/pronunciation gets mangled a lot (“quiz-atz haderach,” “kwitzatteracht,” etc.), but the original term is Kwisatz Haderach.

I asked it if Hacker News was in it's training data and gave it the website and it gave me the first "I don't know anything about that" I've ever seen from it.

Re: AI Resistance: some recent anti-AI stuff that’s worth discussing

#432

Post by stavros »

suzzer99 wrote: post #119
tptacek wrote: post #9

I'm glad this person found community, but I think they've been a bit starstruck by concentrated interest. At no point in the next 30 years will there not be an active community of people who "loathe" AI and work to obstruct it. There are those people about smart phones, the Internet itself, even television. Meanwhile: the ability to poison models, if it can be made to work reliably, is a genuinely interesting CS ques…

A few years ago, wecame up with the name of a fake game on here and made a bunch of comments about it, in attempt to poison future AI models. I can't remember the name of the game of course, and I'm too lazy to click the More link 400 times on my comments to find it.

I thought you're talking about Qwitzatteracht, but that's not fake.

Re: AI Resistance: some recent anti-AI stuff that’s worth discussing

#433

Post by hollerith »

xpe wrote: post #176
lolcatzlulz wrote: post #63

The easiest way to grow AI resistance is to get Dario Amodei and Sam Altman on TV and let them talk.

> The easiest way to grow AI resistance is to get Dario Amodei and Sam Altman on TV and let them talk. Tell me more? I'm guessing you might say: neither connects with everyday people, they have misaligned incentives*, they (like most corporate leaders) don't speak directly, they have more power than almost any elected leader in the world, ... Did I miss anything? My take: when it comes to character and goals and ther…

Yudkowsky disagrees with your claim that Amodei is any better than Altman (although he does think that Anthropic as a whole is better than OpenAI):

https://x.com/allTheYud/status/2042716955145310421

Yudkowsky's main focus is on AI extinction risk, and that is the standard by which he is evaluating these people (and companies).

Re: AI Resistance: some recent anti-AI stuff that’s worth discussing

#434

Post by larodi »

xienze wrote: post #136
platinumrad wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People love harping on this one, but model collapse hasn't turned out to be an issue in practice.

“It’s been a whole year or two and nothing bad has happened, checkmate doomers!” It’s pretty shocking how much web content and forum posts are either partially or completely LLM-generated these days. I’m pretty sure feeding this stuff back into models is widely understood to not be a good thing.

What do you imagine distillation being then?

Re: AI Resistance: some recent anti-AI stuff that’s worth discussing

#435

Post by rockskon »

theamk wrote: post #331
rockskon wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And was there this massive, aggressive effort by a tiny handful of companies to mandate software developers use the Internet? Because I seem to recall people generally willingly choosing to use it as opposed to the aggressive efforts by blue chip tech companies to force the public at large to use it.

No matter what OpenAI or Nvidia says, they cannot force the developers of some company to use AI. They simply lack power to do this directly (with a very few exceptions, like their subcontractors) What they can do, however, is they can run heavy advertising campaign targeted at executives. And once executives are convinced, they will write AI policies, and some will force their workers to use AI. And this has been ha…

The endless copilot integrations and promotions and insistence of nudges from Microslop, Google search mandating AI usage without going well beyond what most users know to avoid it, misleading YouTube video summaries.....these are all examples you cannot meaningfully opt out of that goes well beyond advertising to executives.

Re: AI Resistance: some recent anti-AI stuff that’s worth discussing

#436

Post by karmickoala »

haberman wrote: post #88

I'm old enough to remember a time when the primary hacker cause was DRM, the DMCA, patent trolls, export controls for PGP, etc. All things that made it difficult to use information when you want to. "Information wants to be free." It's wild to see the about face. Now it's: > If [companies] can’t source training data ethically, then I see absolutely no reason why any website operator should make it easy for them to st…

There's a big asymmetry of power here and "information wants to be free" was about empowering the people. Currently, corporations are bad faith actors that corrupted the idea, making it free only for themselves. Can't you see the asymmetry here? For instance, they should release the weights of the models they trained on everyone else work, but we're not seeing that except for Meta and some other groups.

Re: AI Resistance: some recent anti-AI stuff that’s worth discussing

#437

Post by Anamon »

Legend2440 wrote: post #246
jordanb wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be plenty of content out there but everyone with any content on the internet is struggling to keep AI crawlers that they never authorized out. In many cases, people are having to do so just to protect their infrastructure from request spamming. Since AI crawlers don't obey any consent markers denying access to content, it makes sense for content owners who don't want AI trained on their content to poison it…

I don't think this traffic is actually coming from crawlers for training. Think about it, why would a training scraper need to hit the same page hundreds of times a day? They only need to download it once. I think this is LLMs doing web searches at runtime in response to user queries. There's no caching at this level, so similar queries by many different users could lead the LLM to request the same page many times.

Another possibility is that their crawling code is just that bad. A lot of these GenAI companies are dogfooding in their software development, and the quality can be seen whenever some of their code is released or leaked. It seems very plausible to me that their crawlers could simply barely functional, buggy messes. They have unlimited venture capital to burn, so it doesn't really matter if they scrape a site 100,000 times a day when once would have been enough.

Re: AI Resistance: some recent anti-AI stuff that’s worth discussing

#438

Post by throwawa14223 »

DoughHook wrote: post #173
throwawa14223 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I firmly believe AI is a surefire path to UBI. It's made me radically anti-AI.

I haven't seen anyone be against UBI given it's feasible. Why do you have this opinion?

This is probably going to sound alien. Socialism is ontologically evil. Regardless of outcome or positive it produces there is a moral obligation to stop the state from doing something like UBI.

Re: AI Resistance: some recent anti-AI stuff that’s worth discussing

#439

Post by cindyllm »

throwawa14223 wrote: post #438
DoughHook wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen anyone be against UBI given it's feasible. Why do you have this opinion?

This is probably going to sound alien. Socialism is ontologically evil. Regardless of outcome or positive it produces there is a moral obligation to stop the state from doing something like UBI.

[dead]
Post reply on HN