Live data from Hacker News

Dead Internet Theory

kudmitry.com

691–700 of 735 posts

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is almost impossible to escape the constant barrage of takes and news headlines these days without being a total luddite Its odd to me to still use "luddite" disparagingly while implying that avoiding certain tech would actually have some high impact benefits. At that point I can't help but think the only real issue with being a luddite is not following the crowd and fitting in.

I didn't use it disparagingly. In fact, it's easier than ever to see the intended benefit of such a lifestyle.

Fair enough! I must have just misread you then, I'm too used to see it described as a bad thing.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#692
post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is almost impossible to escape the constant barrage of takes and news headlines these days without being a total luddite Its odd to me to still use "luddite" disparagingly while implying that avoiding certain tech would actually have some high impact benefits. At that point I can't help but think the only real issue with being a luddite is not following the crowd and fitting in.

> Its odd to me to still use "luddite" disparagingly while implying that avoiding certain tech would actually have some high impact benefits They didn't say to avoid certain tech. They said to avoid takes and news headlines. Your conflation of those two is like someone saying "injecting bleach into your skin is bad" and you responding with "oh, so you oppose cleaning bathrooms [with bleach]?"

How so? The OP referenced how difficult it is to avoid said takes and news without being a complete luddite. That certainly implies avoiding certain tech, I have to assume they meant much of the digital tech we use today rather than the power loom luddites were pushing back on.

Your bleach scenario is confusing to me, its also you arguing against something completely unrelated to the discussion here.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that’s not the Turing Test. The human who can be fooled in the Turing test was explicitly called the “interrogator”. To pass the Turing test the AI would have to be indistinguishable from a human to the person interrogating it in a back and forth conversation. Simply being fooled by some generated content does not count (if it did, this was passed decades ago). No LLM/AI system today can pass the Turing test.

I've encountered people who seem to understand properly how the test works, and still think that current LLM passes it easily. Most of them come across to me like they would think ELIZA passes it, if they weren't told up front that they were testing ELIZA.

I think state of the art LLMs would pass the Turing test for 95% people if those people could (text) chat to them in a time before LLM chatbots became widespread.

That is, the main thing that makes it possible to tell LLM bots apart from humans is that lots of us have over the past 3 years become highly attuned to specific foibles and text patterns which signal LLM generated text - much like how I can tell my close friends' writing apart by their use of vocabulary, punctuation, typical conversation topics, and evidence (or lack) of knowledge in certain domains.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#694
I was in engaged in a similar discussion with a co-worker where I was defending my view that I'd rather read the news than try to trust a brief video clip presented to me. I feel like I'm constantly keeping an eye out for excessive biases creeping into my 'trusted' sources. For a civilian like me, it's quite hard to grasp what lens the story is being presented to me as. Casually reading the news isn't a thing for me...it usually involves a little bit of research to ensure I'm not getting duped. The dead internet theory is important.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#695
post #653

I'm not saying the entire internet needs to be this way, but I would love to see the expansion of non-anonymous/verified accounts used on web platforms. Take ycombinator for example; some of the best comments come from users with known identities and reputations tied to their accounts, rather than anonymous folks who can spew whatever nonsense without repercussion (and in some cases aren't even real people).

On the other hand, take LinkedIn for example, and you get the bottom of corporate AI-slop. I agree that anonymization makes people more hostile to others, but I doubt the de-anonymization is the solution. Old school forums and IRC channels were, _mostly_, safe because they were (a) small, (b) local, and (c) usually had offline meetups.

On the plus side, LinkedIn isn't full of hate and division like the mess that is Facebook. Everyone is still acting accountable for their words.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#696
post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>is "you are absolutely right" wrong somehow? It makes sense in English, however: a) "you are" vs "you're". "you are" sounds too formal/authoritative in informal speech, and depending on tone, patronising. b) one could say "you're absolutely right", but the "absolutely" is too dramatic/stressed for simple corrections (an example of sycophancy in LLMs) If the prompt was something like "You did not include $VAR in func…

Thanks for the thorough explanation, that, indeed, is a level of nuance that's hard for me to spot. Interestingly, "absolutely right" is very common in German: "du hast natürlich absolut Recht" is something which I can easily imagine a friend's voice (or my voice) say at a dinner table. It's "du hast Recht" that sounds a little bit too formal and strong x[. Agreed on the sycophancy point, in Gemini I even have a prea…

There's likely a cultural element to it as well regarding how we admit mistakes and correct ourselves.

With how blame-avoidant western individualist culture can be, seeing something "admit" doing wrong so quickly, and so emphatically, could be uncanny valley-level jarring.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#697
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think incentives is the right way to think about it. Authentic interactions are not monetized. So where are people writing online without expecting payment? Blogs can have ads, but blogs with RSS feeds are a safer bet as it's hard to monetize an RSS feed. Blogs are a great place to find people who are writing just because they want to write. As I see more AI slop on social media, I spend more time in my feed reader…

I've been thinking recently about a search engine that filters away any sites that contain advertising. Just that would filter away most of the crap. Kagi's small web lens seems to have a similar goal but doesn't really get there. It still includes results that have advertising, and omits stuff that isn't small but is ad free, like Wikipedia or HN.

It's challenging to decide where to draw the line. Is it OK that wikipedia begs for donations? Sites that use affiliate links can be full of crap too, although technically ad free.

I think its worth exploring.

BTW, HN has ads. They post job openings at their start ups, these appear like posts but you can't vote on them. Launch HN is another way this site is monetized, although that seems quite reasonable and you can vote/flag those posts like any other.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think incentives is the right way to think about it. Authentic interactions are not monetized. So where are people writing online without expecting payment? Blogs can have ads, but blogs with RSS feeds are a safer bet as it's hard to monetize an RSS feed. Blogs are a great place to find people who are writing just because they want to write. As I see more AI slop on social media, I spend more time in my feed reader…

Monetization isn't the only possible incentive for non-genuine content though CV-stuffing is another that is likely to affect blogs - and there have been plenty obviously AI-generated/"enhanced" blogs posted here.

Sure, but with a feed reader I unsubscribe when ever I see slop. News aggregators don't have the same filtering ability; I don't think you can ban a site from HN for posting slop, for example.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When they don't have outrage media they form gossip networks so they can tell each other embellished stories about mundane matters to be outraged and scandalized about. But again in this situation the goal is not to be angry. This sort of behaviour emerges as a consequence of unhealthy group dynamics (and to a lesser extent, plain boredom). By gossiping, a person expresses understanding of, and reinforces, their in…

I disagree. In these gossip circles they brush off anything that doesn't make them upset, eager to get to the outrageously stuff. They really do seek to be upset. It's a pattern of behavior which old people in particular commonly fall into, even in absence of commercialized media dynamics.

> In these gossip circles they brush off anything that doesn't make them upset

Things that they have no fear about, and so do not register as warranting brain time.

> eager to get to the outrageously stuff.

The things which are creating a feeling of fear.

It’s not necessary for the source of a fear to exist in the present moment, nor for it to even be a thing that is real. For as long as humans have communicated, we have told tales about things that go bump in the dark. Tales of people who, through their apparent ignorance of the rules of the group, caused the wrath of some spirits who then punished the group.

It needn’t matter whether a person’s actions actually caused a problem, or whether it caused the spirits to be upset, or indeed whether the spirits actually ever existed at all. What matters is that there is a fear, and there is a story about that fear, and the story reinforces some shared group value.

> It's a pattern of behavior which old people in particular commonly fall into,

Here is the fundamental fear of many people: the fear of obsolescence, irrelevance, abandonment, and loss of control. We must adapt to change, but also often have either an inability or unwillingness to do so. And so the story becomes it is everyone else who is wrong. Sometimes there is wisdom in the story that should not be dismissed. But most often it is just an expression of fear (and, again, sometimes boredom).

What makes this hypothesis seem so unbelievable? Why does it need to be people seeking anger? What would need to be true for you to change your opinion? This discussion thread is old, so no need to spend your energy on answering if you don’t feel strongly about it. Just some parting questions to mull over in the bath, perhaps.

Thank you for raising this idea originally, and for engaging with me on it.

Re: Dead Internet Theory

#700

My parents were tricked the other day by a fake youtube video of "racist cop" doing something bad and getting outraged by it. I watch part of the video and even though it felt off I couldn't immediately tell for sure if it was fake or not. Nevertheless I googled the names and details and found nothing but repostings of the video. Then I looked at the youtube channel info and there it said it uses AI for "some" of the…

As they say, the demand for racism far outstrips the supply. It's hard to spend all day outraged if you rely on reality to supply enough fodder.

Right... when you overhear the elderly in the gym locker rooms talk about "the Mexicans that keep moving in" yeah racism is so short in supply....
Post reply on HN