You know what Pac stands for? PAC. Program and Control. He’s Program and Control Man. The whole thing’s a metaphor. All he can do is consume. He’s pursued by demons that are probably just in his own head. And even if he does manage to escape by slipping out one side of the maze, what happens? He comes right back in the other side. People think it’s a happy game. It’s not a happy game. It’s a fucking nightmare world. And the worst thing is? It’s real and we live in it.
This is a really interesting paragraph to me because I definitely think these results shouldn’t be published or we’ll only get more of these “whoopsie” experiments.
At the same time though, I think it is desperately important to research the ability of LLMs to persuade people sooner rather than later when they become even more persuasive and natural-sounding. The article mentions that in studies humans already have trouble telling the difference between AI written sentences and human ones.
AI is a fucking curse upon humanity. The tiny morsels of good it can do is FAR outweighed by the destruction it causes. Fuck anyone involved with perpetuating this nightmare.
Damn this AI, posting and doing all this mayhem all by itself on poor unsuspecting humans…
Todays “AI” is just machine learning code. It’s been around for decades and does a lot of good. It’s most often used for predictive analytics and used to facilitate patient flow in healthcare and understand volumes of data fast to provide assistance to providers, case manager, and social workers. Also used in other industries that receive little attention.
Even some language learning machines can do good, it’s the shitty people that use it for shitty purposes that ruin it.
Sure I know what it is and what it is good for, I just don’t think the juice is worth the squeeze. The companies developing AI HAVE to shove it everywhere to make it feasible, and the doing of that is destructive to our entire civilization. The theft of folks’ work, the scamming, the deep fakes, the social media propaganda bots, the climate raping energy consumption, the loss of skill and knowledge, the enshittification of writing and the arts, the list goes on and on. It’s a deadend that humanity will regret pursuing if we survive this century. The fact that we get a paltry handful of positives is cold comfort for our ruin.
The fact that we get a paltry handful of positives is cold comfort for our ruin.
This statement tells me you don’t understand how many industries are using machine learning and how many lives it saves.
I disagree. It may seem that way if that’s all you look at and/or you buy the BS coming from the LLM hype machine, but IMO it’s really no different than the leap to the internet or search engines. Yes, we open ourselves up to a ton of misinformation, shifting job market etc, but we also get a suite of interesting tools that’ll shake themselves out over the coming years to help improve productivity.
It’s a big change, for sure, but it’s one we’ll navigate, probably in similar ways that we’ve navigated other challenges, like scams involving spoofed webpages or fake calls. We’ll figure out who to trust and how to verify that we’re getting the right info from them.
LLMs are not like the birth of the internet. LLMs are more like what came after when marketing took over the roadmap. We had AI before LLMs, and it delivered high quality search results. Now we have search powered by LLMs and the quality is dramatically lower.
Sure, and we had an internet before the world wide web (ARPANET). But that wasn’t hugely influential until it was expanded into what’s now the Internet. And that evolved into the world wide web after 20-ish years. Each step was a pretty monumental change, and built on concepts from before.
LLMs are no different. Yes they’re built on older tech, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re a monumental shift from what we had before.
Let’s look at access to information and misinformation. The process was something like this:
- Physical encyclopedias, newspapers, etc
- Digital, offline encyclopedias and physical newspapers
- Online encyclopedias and news
- SEO and the rise of blog/news spam - misinformation is intentional or negligent
- Early AI tools - misinformation from hallucinations is largely also accidental
- Misinformation in AI tools becomes intentional
We’re in the transition from 5 to 6, which is similar to the transition from 3 to 4. I’m old enough to have seen each of these transitions.
The way people interact with the world is fundamentally different now than it was before LLMs came out, just like the transition from offline to online computing. And just like people navigated the transition to SEO nonsense, people need to navigate he transition to LLM nonsense. It’s quite literally a paradigm shift.
Personally I love how they found the AI could be very persuasive by lying.
why wouldn’t that be the case, all the most persuasive humans are liars too. fantasy sells better than the truth.
Reddit: Ban the Russian/Chinese/Israeli/American bots? Nope. Ban the Swiss researchers that are trying to study useful things? Yep
Bots attempting to manipulate humans by impersonating trauma counselors or rape survivors isn’t useful. It’s dangerous.
Humans pretend to be experts infront of eachother and constantly lie on the internet every day.
Say what you want about 4chan but the disclaimer it had ontop of its page should be common sense to everyone on social media.
that doesn’t mean we should exacerbate the issue with AI.
If fake experts on the internet get their jobs taken by the ai, it would be tragic indeed.
Don’t worry tho, popular sites on the internet are dead since they’re all bots anyway. It’s over.
If fake experts on the internet get their jobs taken by the ai, it would be tragic indeed.
These two groups are not mutually exclusive
Sure, but still less dangerous of bots undermining our democracies and trying to destroy our social frabic.
didn’t reddit do this secretly a few years ago, as well ?
I don’t know what you have in mind but the founders originally used bots to generate activity to make the site look popular. Which begs the question. What was really the root reddit cultures. Was it the bots following human activity to bolster it. Or were the humans merely following what the founders programmed the bots to post.
One things for sure, reddit has always been a platform of questionable integrity.
Reddit’s chief legal officer, Ben Lee, wrote that the company intends to “ensure that the researchers are held accountable for their misdeeds.”
What are they going to do? Ban the last humans on there having a differing opinion?
Next step for those fucks is verification that you are an AI when signing up.
Not remotely surprised.
I dabble in conversational AI for work, and am currently studying its capabilities for thankfully (imo at least) positive and beneficial interactions with a customer base.
I’ve been telling friends and family recently that for a fairly small amount of money and time investment, I am fairly certain a highly motivated individual could influence at a minimum a local election. Given that, I imagine it would be very easy for Nations or political parties to easily manipulate individuals on a much larger scale, that IMO nearly everything on the Internet should be suspect at this point, and Reddit is atop that list.
This isn’t even a theoretical question. We saw it live in the last us elections. Fox News, TikTok, WaPo etc. are owned by right wing media and sane washed trump. It was a group effort. You need to be suspicious not only of the internet but of tv and newspapers too. Old school media isn’t safe either. It never really was.
But I think the root cause is that people don’t have the time to really dig deep to get to the truth, and they want entertainment not be told about the doom and gloom of the actual future (like climate change, loss of the middle class etc).
I think it’s more that most people don’t want to see views that don’t align with their own or challenge their current ones. There are those of us who are naturally curious. Who want to know how things work, why things are, what the latest real information is. That does require that research and digging. It can get exhausting if you don’t enjoy that. If it isn’t for you, then you just don’t want things to clash with what you “know” now. Others will also not want to admit they were wrong. They’ll push back and look for places that agree with them.
People are afraid to question their belief systems because it will create an identity crisis, and most people can’t psychologically deal with it. So it’s all self preservation.
Fucking a. I. And their apologist script kiddies. worse than fucking Facebook in its disinformation
When Reddit rebranded itself as “the heart of the internet” a couple of years ago, the slogan was meant to evoke the site’s organic character. In an age of social media dominated by algorithms, Reddit took pride in being curated by a community that expressed its feelings in the form of upvotes and downvotes—in other words, being shaped by actual people.
Not since the APIcalypse at least.
Aside from that, this is just reheated news (for clicks i assume) from a week or two ago.
One likely reason the backlash has been so strong is because, on a platform as close-knit as Reddit, betrayal cuts deep.
Another laughable quote after the APIcalypse, at least for the people that remained on Reddit after being totally ok with being betrayed.
Wow you mean reddit is banning real users and replacing them with bots???
[…] I read through dozens of the AI comments, and although they weren’t all brilliant, most of them seemed reasonable and genuine enough. They made a lot of good points, and I found myself nodding along more than once. As the Zurich researchers warn, without more robust detection tools, AI bots might “seamlessly blend into online communities”—that is, assuming they haven’t already.
This is probably the most ethical you’ll ever see it. There are definitely organizations committing far worse experiments.
Over the years I’ve noticed replies that are far too on the nose. Probing just the right pressure points as if they dropped exactly the right breadcrumbs for me to respond to. I’ve learned to disengage at that point. It’s either they scrolled through my profile. Or as we now know it’s a literal psy-op bot. Already in the first case it’s not worth engaging with someone more invested than I am myself.
Yeah I was thinking exactly this.
It’s easy to point to reasons why this study was unethical, but the ugly truth is that bad actors all over the world are performing trials exactly like this all the time - do we really want the only people who know how this kind of manipulation works to be state psyop agencies, SEO bros, and astroturfing agencies working for oil/arms/religion lobbyists?
Seems like it’s much better long term to have all these tricks out in the open so we know what we’re dealing with, because they’re happening whether it gets published or not.
actors all over the world are performing trials exactly like this all the time
I marketing speak this is called A/B testing.
But you aren’t allowed to mention Luigi
You’re banned for inciting violence.
Free Luigi
Eat the rich
The police are a terrorist organization
Trump and Epstein bff
Imagine what the people doing this professionally do, since they know they won’t face the scrutiny of publication.
The key result
When researchers asked the AI to personalize its arguments to a Redditor’s biographical details, including gender, age, and political leanings (inferred, courtesy of another AI model, through the Redditor’s post history), a surprising number of minds indeed appear to have been changed. Those personalized AI arguments received, on average, far higher scores in the subreddit’s point system than nearly all human commenters
While that is indeed what was reported, we and the researchers will never know if the posters with shifted opinions were human or in fact also AI bots.
The whole thing is dodgy for lack of controls, this isn’t science it’s marketing
If they were personalized wouldn’t that mean they shouldn’t really receive that many upvotes other than maybe from the person they were personalized for?
I would assume that people in a similar demographics are interested in similar topics. Adjusting the answer to a person within a demographic would therefore adjust it to all people within that demographic and interested in that specific topic.
Or maybe it’s just the nature of the answer being more personal that makes it more appealing to people in general, no matter their background.
