3 ms·

The content it produces is quite hard to distinct from text written by real person. Not long ago, Facebook was accused of "playing a critical role" in Rohingya

• ars 4y ago
  That doesn't answer the question. So what if it wrote text, vs a human wrote text. What matters is the reader not the writer. Facebook was accused of making it too easy for people to communicate. And people felt Facebook should police what people say to each other. I don't agree, but even if I did, that's not the same thing as what we are discussing.
• bostik 4y ago
  As much as I dislike FB, and I certainly abhor their activities related to the genocide - I think this is far too different. Rohingya is a textbook example of blind optimisation and lack of context awareness. FB looked at a region, and people communicating in language they didn't understand. But they did see that certain symbols and/or combinations of symbols got a lot of engagement. If you're after money, you want to amplify the use of those symbols and hopefully generate lots more similar content. Turns out that's a morally reprehensible thing when the people using those symbols were advocating genocide. (It was good for the revenue while it lasted, though.) With LLMs and their hardcoded guard rails, I suspect we're going to see the danger emerge from the other side. Instead of actively spewing hatred, they will be used for mass sock-puppetry and opinion amplification on a massive scale. Think simple sabotage field manual for 21st century, but weaponised thousand-fold.