51–60 of 129 posts
It's fascinating and tragic how AI generated comments are obviously present in this comment section. Anyone else find it unsurprising that this happens? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41078496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41095522
I see it in real life too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> bots to become nearly indistinguishable from humans curious, why do you this is going to happen. Whats the thought process here to come to that conclusion.
I don’t just think this will happen; I think it’s already happening. Harder to pull off here, but already extremely prevalent on Reddit and other popular social spaces. And part of the reason it works is that a significant subset of human commenters write rather poorly and are not hard to beat, to say nothing of the evolving tools. But don’t take my word for it. Go spend some time experimenting with the state of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe to establish a ring of accounts that duck underneath the vote ring detection metrics and that you can then use to upvote people’s stories? (For a small fee of course) This attempt probably will be flagged by dang since you called it out, but given enough effort they may even construct bots that generate the proper curious discussion that we like here, and have a small (but lucrative) rounding error in voting be…
yeah, but this looks like a very poor attempt. i mean i'm not a HN-veteran or anything but it seems like you need a way more sophisticated mechanism to get around HN/dang restrictions :D but you're right, if the bots get better, it will get harder. i actually wanted to respond to one of the comments to talk about the butterfly effect etc., but thought the comment seemed very artificial. then i saw the other comment w…
I "cheat out" writing my comments. They're mostly for the audience, and only a little bit for the person I'm replying to. Do you write for the person you're replying to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ah the classic " This is just the beginning" argument driving the hype. Have you considered that this might all that we will ever get? chatgpt-4o after much hype, billions of dollars and years later didn't improve much in terms of core intelligence of its responses. I guess thats not enough for "AGI is coming because we have chatbot" crowd.
We don’t need anything nearing AGI for these bots to become nearly indistinguishable from humans and to have increasing impact on communities. I think it’s utterly fascinating how quickly people have lost sight of current reality, either by believing AGI must be around the corner, or by being sure it absolutely isn’t. Assuming 4o is the most advanced model we ever have, the point still stands. Many of the poorly buil…
More and more I think AGI is shifting to mean "machine soul" or some nebulous wishy-washy unfalsifiable religious/philosophy shit like that. What meaning could AGI have which is empirically verifiable, other than being indistinguishable from people? Humans I presume are supposed to have "general intelligence", so if there isn't a detectable difference between the machine and humans, how is that not artificial general intelligence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe to establish a ring of accounts that duck underneath the vote ring detection metrics and that you can then use to upvote people’s stories? (For a small fee of course) This attempt probably will be flagged by dang since you called it out, but given enough effort they may even construct bots that generate the proper curious discussion that we like here, and have a small (but lucrative) rounding error in voting be…
I’m sure this is a worn out discussion point, and touches on some deep philosophical issues. But if bots could be entirely indistinguishable from humans and generate curious discussion, would I really care that they’re bots? None of you know me. I might be a bot. But do I not generate curiosity? Do I not get downvoted on occasion? As a language model I—-
As far as bots providing useful comments, xkcd did it (https://xkcd.com/810/) in 2010, but there are downsides. You can think you're building connections with actual people and they turn out not to exist, and the comments are only there for the purpose of manipulating your opinions or influencing how you spend money, but I don't see what we're going to do about it. Captchas certainly aren't a viable option anymore.
ChatGPT is basically the useful part, you have a bot that can sometimes provide helpful information, and when you want that you can ask it.
It's fascinating and tragic how AI generated comments are obviously present in this comment section. Anyone else find it unsurprising that this happens? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41078496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41095522
Oh... why... oh why... I will never understand such behavior. What are incentives here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don’t need anything nearing AGI for these bots to become nearly indistinguishable from humans and to have increasing impact on communities. I think it’s utterly fascinating how quickly people have lost sight of current reality, either by believing AGI must be around the corner, or by being sure it absolutely isn’t. Assuming 4o is the most advanced model we ever have, the point still stands. Many of the poorly buil…
> "We don’t need anything nearing AGI for these bots to become nearly indistinguishable from humans" More and more I think AGI is shifting to mean "machine soul" or some nebulous wishy-washy unfalsifiable religious/philosophy shit like that. What meaning could AGI have which is empirically verifiable, other than being indistinguishable from people? Humans I presume are supposed to have "general intelligence", so if t…
Humans come in all levels of intelligence. Yes there might be a human somewhere that believes that they should eat rocks or add glue to pizza. But as a generality we can assume that adult "humans" know not to eat rocks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> bots to become nearly indistinguishable from humans curious, why do you this is going to happen. Whats the thought process here to come to that conclusion.
I don’t just think this will happen; I think it’s already happening. Harder to pull off here, but already extremely prevalent on Reddit and other popular social spaces. And part of the reason it works is that a significant subset of human commenters write rather poorly and are not hard to beat, to say nothing of the evolving tools. But don’t take my word for it. Go spend some time experimenting with the state of the…
This was happening way before LLMs though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe to establish a ring of accounts that duck underneath the vote ring detection metrics and that you can then use to upvote people’s stories? (For a small fee of course) This attempt probably will be flagged by dang since you called it out, but given enough effort they may even construct bots that generate the proper curious discussion that we like here, and have a small (but lucrative) rounding error in voting be…
I’m sure this is a worn out discussion point, and touches on some deep philosophical issues. But if bots could be entirely indistinguishable from humans and generate curious discussion, would I really care that they’re bots? None of you know me. I might be a bot. But do I not generate curiosity? Do I not get downvoted on occasion? As a language model I—-
People love reddit to get genuine feedback on a product. Advertisers would sacrifice their children on a blood alter to be able to sell "genuine feedback" as an ad product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If these incredibly-obvious no-content non-comments are the best that LLMs can do I think our jobs are safe I think we have to look at these as an early iteration. These bots are only going to get better and better.
ah the classic " This is just the beginning" argument driving the hype. Have you considered that this might all that we will ever get? chatgpt-4o after much hype, billions of dollars and years later didn't improve much in terms of core intelligence of its responses. I guess thats not enough for "AGI is coming because we have chatbot" crowd.