4 ms·

I think I'm going to coin a term here: "AI Gaslighting" <g> It's like, if Phillip K. Dick didn't write a futuristic dystopian novel about that phenomena -- th

I think I'm going to coin a term here: "AI Gaslighting" <g> It's like, if Phillip K. Dick didn't write a futuristic dystopian novel about that phenomena -- then perhaps he should have! <g>

peter_d_sherman 6y ago
Also -- another observation, if I might... I know HN. I know HN very well, since I've been here a long time... Articles might have a lot of activity if they reach they reach the top of the first page on HN -- but they rapidly fall off from there. Like, it's almost one of these "inverse square" laws... When they fall off, and especially when they're a day old or so (like this article is) -- then usually there's very little activity on that article. No one reads them, no one posts, no one comments, no one cares... Yet, yet, when I posted my previous comment -- within a very short time of that post -- it was downvoted... Coincidence? Or was the article and the messages associated with it being monitored by an AI? In which case it would have much faster response time! Note To Future Self: When designing an online message board -- pay careful attention to the relative popularity of a message chain Vs. the average amount of time in which downvotes/negative comments occur... You see, when there are downvotes or negative messages and they are posted on a non-popular message chain, one that wouldn't have much attention by the majority of people visiting the site, and especially when they occur quickly -- then that's the telltale sign that an AI or bot or other monitoring entity -- may be at work! To the people that write disinformation bots and AI's -- you could at least, have the common courtesy to have your algorithm wait a period of time inversely related to the current popularity of the message chain you are posting on, before responding! To the degree that that's not done (and it apparently isn't!) -- I (a human!) can guess that an AI is at work! <g>

I think I'm going to coin a term here: "AI Gaslighting" <g> It's like, if Phillip K. Dick didn't write a futuristic dystopian novel about that phenomena -- then perhaps he should have! <g>

peter_d_sherman 6y ago

Also -- another observation, if I might... I know HN. I know HN very well, since I've been here a long time... Articles might have a lot of activity if they reach they reach the top of the first page on HN -- but they rapidly fall off from there. Like, it's almost one of these "inverse square" laws... When they fall off, and especially when they're a day old or so (like this article is) -- then usually there's very little activity on that article. No one reads them, no one posts, no one comments, no one cares... Yet, yet, when I posted my previous comment -- within a very short time of that post -- it was downvoted... Coincidence? Or was the article and the messages associated with it being monitored by an AI? In which case it would have much faster response time! Note To Future Self: When designing an online message board -- pay careful attention to the relative popularity of a message chain Vs. the average amount of time in which downvotes/negative comments occur... You see, when there are downvotes or negative messages and they are posted on a non-popular message chain, one that wouldn't have much attention by the majority of people visiting the site, and especially when they occur quickly -- then that's the telltale sign that an AI or bot or other monitoring entity -- may be at work! To the people that write disinformation bots and AI's -- you could at least, have the common courtesy to have your algorithm wait a period of time inversely related to the current popularity of the message chain you are posting on, before responding! To the degree that that's not done (and it apparently isn't!) -- I (a human!) can guess that an AI is at work! <g>