61–70 of 98 posts
I think GPT-3 could be blessing for Reddit and HN type forums. Add some GPT-3 content and links into the feed. Decrease the vote weight for users who upvote them and increase vote weight for those who downvote them.
So, you’re experimenting on users without their knowledge? There’s a thing called ethics. You might want to look into that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that it's also true. Comments like that decrease the quality of the discussion by attacking the "author" rather than the content. (If the commenter had written even a couple sentences on why they suspected GPT-3, I would feel differently.)
Exactly. I can't tell if that poster actually suspects the content was generated, or if they are simply using the comparison as an insult.
HN submission from the blog post author, where the comments from dang reveal the author engaged in voting manipulation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24062702
It's false that the post was generated by GPT-3. The author admitted to writing the title and editing the intro. He also described the article body this way: "as unedited as possible"—in other words, edited. It's false that (as he originally claimed) only one commenter called the post out as GPT-3, and false that all such comments were downvoted.
All that is just what he publicly admitted. How much of the rest is also fake? People who try to game HN like he did, including with bogus accounts and fake votes, are not known for scruples. It seems that, having got busted in dishonest attempts to get attention on HN, he decided to get attention from journalists instead, and found one who didn't bother to check the other side of the story.
The HN article that this is about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23893817 Congratulations to the authors of these comments, who correctly guessed that it was written by GPT-3: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23894742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23894000
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, you could have been right. It could have been a non-native speaker. I'd hate to end up in a situation where non-native speakers are accused of being bots...
I feel like so many of you are just utterly too kind. Without getting into the generated article, we have a lot of Orwellian new speak everywhere. Your standard corporate/management/hr speak is very pervasive. It sounds inhuman. This is a language many people adopt to fit in and make it in this world. It shadows itself in blogs they write, particularly signaling blogs. The generated article follows in this vein. That…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. I'm certain GPT-3 has been commenting on HN threads for a while now. In some cases, its presence has been disclosed (see, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23886503 ) In other cases, GPT-3's presence has not been disclosed; the machine has been pretending to be a human being, largely unnoticed. Consider only how easy it is for it to write short, punchy comments --…
I'm reminded of https://xkcd.com/810/ . The example comments you linked (Where GPT-3's presence was disclosed) were believably human, particularly if you were skimming, but they were not good comments. If not for the note at the end about GPT-3, I'm pretty confident they would have been downvoted. And if I'm wrong, and GPT-3 is actually capable of writing thoughtful and substantive comments... well, in the words of X…
HN submission from the blog post author, where the comments from dang reveal the author engaged in voting manipulation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24062702
To me they feel like they're slightly off grammatically. Not in an ESL way, but more like someone really anxious who wants to explain a conspiracy theory to you. However i can't entirely put my finger on it. They do seem to overuse self-reflective statements (I think X) and transitionsal phrases. Maybe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that it's also true. Comments like that decrease the quality of the discussion by attacking the "author" rather than the content. (If the commenter had written even a couple sentences on why they suspected GPT-3, I would feel differently.)
I agree, and this is my instinct, but I worry about the effort becoming very asymmetric. In a world where a large amount of content CAN be generated (my time to read becomes much larger than time to generate / get my attention), and I may or may not be reading sincerely generated content, at what point do I get to attack the content creator for that, especially since it's very difficult for me to understand any given…
The article if written by a human was bad -- poorly argued and trite. However, my mind is blown if it really was written by an AI. As bad as it might seem by human standards, it's almost impossible for me to accept that this was created by an entity without consciousness or at least understanding. Edit: it seems this might be a fraud; i.e., it indeed was produced by an entity with consciousness. I almost hope that’s…