2 ms·

> EVERYTHING you are used to online — including these comments - can already be convincingly deepfaked by adversarial networks trained on throwing bullshit at a

> EVERYTHING you are used to online — including these comments - can already be convincingly deepfaked by adversarial networks trained on throwing bullshit at a wall and seeing what sticks. Bullshit. State of the art chatbots can barely convince one mystic minded guy who has no idea how they work and wants to believe that they are real. If you actually try to converse anything even slightly meaningful with one, it quickly becomes obvious that they have no idea what they are talking about. Sure, they can produce some basic reddit memes and such, or plausibly sounding word salads that resemble what some write, but they are a long way away from actually being convincing chat partners. They do slightly better at imitating copypasta news reporting.

EGreg 4y ago
The point is that you don’t need to converse. Most things are passively consumed — articles etc. by the vast majority of people who come away convinced or reshare them. GPT-3 can bullshit many things convingly enough and at scale to make people reshare and vouch for it. Also, other chatbots can leave comments and reshare masquerading as real opinionated supporters in a “mob” and likewise barely answer you. Remember… it’s not that you the one person who talks to them has to be convinced. It’s that your existing forums and chats and platforms can be gradually infiltrated with bots that convince OTHERS the vast majority of whom never did a turing test. Think of how your opinion was formed on many political things, it likely happened non-interactively by just consuming articles and comments, and seemingly “defeated” arguments of OTHERS who could have all been bots.
- wsinks 4y ago
  Thank you for your second post (kind of answered my other reply to you already) I've seen how gnarly instagram bot comments already are, and wondered how many people are bots vs. people on there. It's not economical to turing test them all, so I've had to assume that they're all propaganda... and even then I've noticed the influence on deciding what's social. How would you measure the success of this, if you were making them?

EGreg 4y ago

The point is that you don’t need to converse. Most things are passively consumed — articles etc. by the vast majority of people who come away convinced or reshare them. GPT-3 can bullshit many things convingly enough and at scale to make people reshare and vouch for it. Also, other chatbots can leave comments and reshare masquerading as real opinionated supporters in a “mob” and likewise barely answer you. Remember… it’s not that you the one person who talks to them has to be convinced. It’s that your existing forums and chats and platforms can be gradually infiltrated with bots that convince OTHERS the vast majority of whom never did a turing test. Think of how your opinion was formed on many political things, it likely happened non-interactively by just consuming articles and comments, and seemingly “defeated” arguments of OTHERS who could have all been bots.

wsinks 4y ago
Thank you for your second post (kind of answered my other reply to you already) I've seen how gnarly instagram bot comments already are, and wondered how many people are bots vs. people on there. It's not economical to turing test them all, so I've had to assume that they're all propaganda... and even then I've noticed the influence on deciding what's social. How would you measure the success of this, if you were making them?