91–98 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is this the largest scale Turing test ever performed on an audience acutely aware of what a Turing test is?
Any evidence to suggest that HN crowd distribution doesn't lean towards Pareto?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, there's not much to elaborate on beyond what they said: "Zero substantive content, pure regurgitation."
It's not true, though. There really is substantive content in that blog post (although it's trite and probably useless advice, it's certainly making a real argument).
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.
I agree with everyone: this is an intriguing idea. I feel like if we did it, it would be sporting to reveal which comments they were, after a suitable amount of time. One tricky bit is which accounts would post the comments. If they were all new accounts that hadn't posted anything before, that would lessen the value of the test. I'm not sure it would make sense to have dedicated accounts for this. Perhaps we'd have…
(The thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24006393 shows that GPT-3 can already pass my screening turing hurdle, one which many actual people arguing on the internet fail.)
====
stolen from https://arachnoid.com/jokes/index.html :
Two academics, Albert and Bill, are sitting in a bar waiting for their friend Charlie.
Albert: "Charlie thinks women don't know any math, he might be right, but I want to play a trick." Albert calls the waitress over.
Albert: "Delia, my friend Charlie is going to arrive in a bit, and I want to play a trick. When he arrives, I'm going to ask you a question, and I want you to answer, 'X cubed divided by three.' Can you remember that?"
Delia: "Sure, no problem, I can remember that."
Charlie arrives and Albert raises his favorite topic.
Albert: "I think you're wrong, I think women can learn math. Just as a test, let's ask the waitress a math question." Albert calls Delia over.
Albert: "What's the integral of x squared, derived with respect to x?"
Delia: "Umm, that would be ... x cubed divided by three"
Delia: "... plus a constant."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with everyone: this is an intriguing idea. I feel like if we did it, it would be sporting to reveal which comments they were, after a suitable amount of time. One tricky bit is which accounts would post the comments. If they were all new accounts that hadn't posted anything before, that would lessen the value of the test. I'm not sure it would make sense to have dedicated accounts for this. Perhaps we'd have…
You can hide everyone's names for a day or so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any evidence to suggest that HN crowd distribution doesn't lean towards Pareto?
how does pareto distribution apply in considering hn comments? you're saying a small % are aware of Turing tests and the rest are gullible? perhaps.
Exactly.
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
Sorry to pop the balloon, but the story is bogus. 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…
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
Sorry to pop the balloon, but the story is bogus. 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…
The following is completely nonsensical, and occurs very early in the article, right after the general introduction:
"Over-Thinking (OT) is the act of trying to come up with ideas that have already been thought through by someone else. OT usually results in ideas that are impractical, impossible, or even stupid."
The only reason to keep reading after this is just to see what other bullshit has been heaped on, like not being able to take your eyes away from a train wreck.
I didn't visit the story when it appeared (regardless of its upvotes) because the very title smelled of self-helpy twaddle. I would for sure have flagged it.
That behavior may be a clue as to what happened. The submission title was crafted in such a way as to deter "nonsense-averse" users from clicking on it, and that may have helped it evade flagging. If a submission evades flags, the only other points it can get are upvotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or even better, for repetitively-discussed topics, just generate the entire comment thread to save us all time. Examples: nuclear power, housing/transit policy, Tesla/Elon Musk.
Standard comments can be automated even without GPT-3: For all scientific studies the correlation is not causality comment. For articles related to economy the mandatory money printing rant. Sometimes the whole fractional reserve banking spiel. For astronomy the "blows my mind how insignificant blah blah." Anything related to nutrition should have keto anecdote. "... and I have never felt so good."