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

441–450 of 735 posts

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#441

Post by zahlman »

eks391 wrote: post #283
lucumo wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not long ago, a statistical study found that AI almost always has an 'e' in its output. It is a firm indicator of AI slop. If you catch a post with an 'e', pay it no mind: it's probably AI. Uh-oh. Caught you. Bang to rights! That post is firmly AI. Bad. Nobody should mind your robot posts.

I'm incredibly impressed that you managed to make that whole message without a single usage of the most frequently used letter, except in your quotations.

Such omission is a hobby of many WWW folk. I can, in fact, think back to finding a community on R*ddit known as "AVoid5", which had this trial as its main point.

Down with that foul fifth glyph! Down, I say!

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#442

Post by dragonwriter »

rmunn wrote: post #235
kimixa wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a brit I'd say we tend to use "en-dashes", slightly shorter versions - so more similar to a hyphen and so often typed like that - with spaces either side. I never saw em-dashes—the longer version with no space—outside of published books and now AI.

Besides the LaTeX use, on Linux if you have gone into your keyboard options and configured a rarely-used key to be your Compose key (I like to use the "menu" key for this purpose, or right Alt if on a keyboard with no "menu" key), you can type Compose sequences as follows (note how they closely resemble the LaTeX -- or --- sequences): Compose, hyphen, hyphen, period: produces – (en dash) Compose, hyphen, hyphen, hyph…

> If I was running Windows I would probably never type em dashes. But since the key combination to type them on Linux is so easy to remember, I use em dashes, degree symbols, and other things all the time.

There are compose key implementations for Windows, too.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#443

Post by ryanjshaw »

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.

> You're training yourself with a very unreliable source of truth.

I don’t just look at the bot decision or accept every consensus blindly. I read the arguments.

If I watch a video and think it’s real and the comments point to the source, which has a description saying they use AI, how is that unreliable?

Alternatively, I watch a video and think it’s AI but a commenter points to a source like YT where the video was posted 5 years ago, or multiple similar videos/news articles about the weird subject of the video, how is that unreliable?

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#444

Post by ryanjshaw »

padjo wrote: post #331
lukan wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I may have to accept that this is just the new reality - never quite knowing the truth." Some people, quite some time ago, also came to that conclusion. (And they did not even had AI to blame) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

I’m really hoping that we’re about to see an explosion in critical thinking and skepticism as a response to generative AI. Any day now… right?

I show my young daughter this stuff and try to role model healthy skepticism. Critical thinking YT like Corridor Crew’s paranormal UFO/bigfoot/ghosts/etc series is great too. Peer pressure might be the deciding factor in what she ultimately chooses to believe, though.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#445

Post by gwd »

LexiMax wrote: post #174
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Discord is the 9,000lb gorilla of this form of social media, and it's actually quietly one of the largest social platforms on the internet. There's clearly a desire for these kinds of spaces, and Discord seems to be filling it. The "former type" had to do with online socializing with people you know IRL. I have never seen anything on Discord that matches this description.

I'm in multiple Discord servers with people I know IRL. In fact, I'd say it's probably the easiest way to bootstrap a community around a friend-group.

Is this a generational thing? All my groups of this type are on WhatsApp (unfortunately).

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#446

Post by zahlman »

bhaak wrote: post #286
kelvie wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of note is theother terrible heuristic I've seen thrown around, where "emojis = AI", and now the "if you use not X, but Y = AI".

With the right context both are pretty good actually. I think the emoji one is most pronounced in bullet point lists. AI loves to add an emoji to bullet points. I guess they got it from lists in hip GitHub projects. The other one is not as strong but if the "not X but Y" is somewhat nonsensical or unnecessary this is very strong indicator it's AI.

>I guess they got it from lists in hip GitHub projects.

I see this way more often on GitHub now than I did before, though.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#447

Post by self_awareness »

mxkopy wrote: post #416
self_awareness wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How do I know that most of racist indicents weren't simulated by you guys? Since you clearly say that it's OK to generate lies about it?

Edit: I literally demonstrate my ability to think critically.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#448

Post by pfg_ »

self_awareness wrote: post #330
mxkopy wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think they did the exact opposite > Also, faked evidence can be done for a variety of reasons, including by someone who intends for the faking to be discovered

Well yes, that's what he wrote, but that's like saying: stealing can be done for variety of reasons, including by someone who intends the theft to be discovered? Killing can be done for variety of reasons, including by someone who intends the killing to be discovered? I read it as "producing racist videos can sometimes be used in good faith"?

They're saying one example of a reason someone could fake a video is so it would get found out and discredit the position it showed. I read it as them saying that producing the fake video of a cop being racist could have been done to discredit the idea of cops being racist.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#449

Post by chrisjj »

skwee357 wrote: post #374
wincy wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew it was real as soon as I read “I stared to see a pattern”, which is funny now I find weird little non spellcheck mistakes endearing since they stamp “oh this is an actual human” on the work

Ha! Despite the fact that I tend to proof read my posts before publishing, right after publishing, and sometimes re-reading them few months after publishing, I still tend to not notice some obvious typos. Kinda makes you feel appreciation for the profession of editors and spell checkers. (And yes, I use LanguageTools in neovim, but I refuse to feed my articles to LLMs).

Your stared typo passes spellcheck.
Post reply on HN