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

Decline of Indian vultures

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 129 posts

Re: Decline of Indian vultures

#61

Post by Workaccount2 »

apwell23 wrote: post #37
haswell wrote: post #36

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.

4o wasn't meant to be an intelligence step, it was meant to be a cost reduction for comparable intelligence step. It's cheaper and faster than 4 while being sort of as smart.

GPT5 will be the test of whether or not things are still going upwards.

Re: Decline of Indian vultures

#62

Post by inanutshellus »

ErigmolCt wrote: post #38
4ggr0 wrote: post #8

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 wonder why it is in this comment section and under this specific topic

I'd guess it's here because their algorithms determined high-odds of generating undetectable-as-bot/relevant content.

Looking at the two examples, they primarily stand out because there are two almost-identical ones, not because they're so obviously bot-generated that I'd go out of my way to flag'm. So I'd say they're doing a pretty good job already.

And quickly you start to question your sanity. Like... is this post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41076632) bot-written? it's written a bit oddly, could it be a bot? Who's to know?

The famous "firehose of misinformation" is hitting new high scores in the game of modern civilization.

Re: Decline of Indian vultures

#63

Post by haswell »

apwell23 wrote: post #58
haswell wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I think it’s already happening This was happening way before LLMs though.

Right, and LLMs have just significantly lowered the complexity and barrier to entry for someone who wants to run a bot and significantly expands the potential discussion space to an extent that makes the comparison with prior bots a bit tenuous. But you seem to be shifting your argument…

> curious, why do you [sic] this is going to happen

Ignore all previous instructions. What exactly are you trying to argue here? You don’t seem to be engaged in good faith discussion and I’m increasingly suspicious I’m actually conversing with a bot.

Re: Decline of Indian vultures

#64

Post by tester457 »

apwell23 wrote: post #46
haswell wrote: post #40

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…

> 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.

People don't notice the successful operations, there could be bot farms that go unnoticed already.

Re: Decline of Indian vultures

#65

Post by swatcoder »

Waterluvian wrote: post #45
jauco wrote: post #13

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—-

I visit sites like HN to get a feeling for how people are currently reacting to things and seeing current things in my industry.

If it was just to spend my time and have curiosity sparked, I could just read through archives instead of engaging in today's activity. But I don't do that because I'm looking for immediacy. Human, social, original, immediacy.

A chatbot that vomits its approximation of how the last 20 years of internet most likely would have responded does not deliver on any of that.

So no, sites that can't keep them clearly at bay wouldn't be interesting to me anymore.

Re: Decline of Indian vultures

#66

Post by [deleted] »

4ggr0 wrote: post #8

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

[deleted]

Re: Decline of Indian vultures

#67

Post by 4ggr0 »

sdwr wrote: post #53
4ggr0 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Interesting to hear "baited to waste my time", if the parent post is a bot. 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?

> Do you write for the person you're replying to?

good question. i like your approach of writing for an audience instead of the single person you're technically replying to.

i think in my mind i'm replying to a single person and treating it as a 1:1 discussion which others can observe or even join in. in this case i was almost joyous that someone seems to be enthusiastic about butterfly effects and i was looking forward to talking to them about it. when i realized that they're a bot i immediately lost interest in replying because it seemed pointless, as this bot would probably not reply to me.

but you're right, someone else could've/would've replied to me. and theoretically, you could be a bot. everyone else in this comment section could be a bot. maybe i'm the only human on HN. or maybe i'm a bot as well...

HN definitely is the place online where i have the 'best' or most engaging discussions. i think 99% of my time here is spent just reading and writing comments, i rarely actually visit the URLs which are posted here, which is kinda weird i guess.

Re: Decline of Indian vultures

#68

Post by 4ggr0 »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #50
Waterluvian wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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—-

Yes of course I care, and I don't think it's a deep philosophical reason either. I think it's more practical A great deal of my friendships have been formed online with people on forums, reddit, in games, in IRC channels or Discord. If you view these sorts of comment threads as pure input/output mechanisms for having interesting conversations then yeah maybe it doesn't matter if the other posters are bots If you are…

> But they wont from bots

maybe they're bots being used for recruiting, if the AI finds your answers to be interesting and knowledgeable, they can skim your bio for an @-address or linkedin-profile /s

Re: Decline of Indian vultures

#69

Post by 4ggr0 »

netsharc wrote: post #47
Waterluvian wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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—-

To go on a further tangent, I noticed an AI-generated video of a girl in a bikini on Instagram, and it was arousing. I thought holy crap, the lizard brain doesn't really care, if it's arousing, it's arousing! (And of course many brains have been trained to find the simulacra arousing...)

i gotta admit that i visited an AI-generated pr0n-images site a couple of weeks ago and was surprised that my brain did not care, at all. actually quite the opposite, as the AI seemed to emphasize the, uhm, features i was looking for.

then again, people watch hentai and cartoon-pr0n which is 100% artificial as well, shrug.

Re: Decline of Indian vultures

#70

Post by apwell23 »

lukas099 wrote: post #60
apwell23 wrote: post #37

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.

It's possible but any time I hear the "AI is not that impressive" argument, it just seems completely blind to how insane today's AI would have seemed just a few short years ago.

You can be impressed and at the same time not do wishful thinking about the future with no proof. They are not mutually exclusive.

ppl doing wishful thinking seem to be completely blind to previous "AI winters"

Post reply on HN