4 ms·

"The bots are CLEARLY LABELED AS BOTS" "https://community.intercoin.app/t/jack-dorseys-tbd-reverses- https://community.intercoin.app/t/jack-dorseys-tbd-reverse

"The bots are CLEARLY LABELED AS BOTS" "https://community.intercoin.app/t/jack-dorseys-tbd-reverses- https://community.intercoin.app/t/jack-dorseys-tbd-reverses-..." In your own example they are not. You have them pose as real humans to deceive people. So you are lying and deceiving as well and I am not aware of any ethical framework, that considers methodical lying as ethical. "Everyone already did this, they just begged their team to astroturf." And no, not everyone did this and even those who did - it is still a BIG difference if real people pose as real people, or if fake bots pose as real people. You know, the difference between truth and lie. edit: I see now, that some of the bots are marked as bots, if you click their profile. But no one does that, when skimming a blog post. Clearly labeling would have been putting "BOT" in the name, but that would defeat the purpose: to deceive people. So please take your fake bots and your fake ethics to somewhere else and stop polluting the internet with even more garbage.

EGreg 4y ago
You are wrong on all accounts, but I am glad you added the edit, at least. You are starting to understand. Before jumping to conclusions on a holier-than-thou high horse as if you already know everything coming in, please answer point by point: 1) Pray tell, how did the forums grow from zero discussion to being a vibrant place, without some team of people “astroturfing” discussion? 2) Did they disclose in every message that they were working for money or out of friendship with the owner, rather than because of their genuine interest in 30 topics monthly? 3) If they disclosed their role in their profile, would you consider that ethical enough? Because that is exactly what is going on here. 4) Many people are too lazy to even check the profile, which is how they respond in full earnestness and outrage to Parody accounts on Twitter. Should Parody accounts keep saying “<sarcasm> blah blah </sarcasm>” in every message because people are lazy? 5) If you don’t like this level of deceit, you’re going to hate nearly all applications of Generative AI because they do far worse and on a far larger scale. Think those photographs are from a real scene? Think that heartfelt letter was written just to you? Think that is your family member begging to send money to a certain crypto address? Think again. This is one of the least bad things that can be done with Generative AI. Of course you won’t come out and attack most other uses of generative AI because they won’t disclose it to you, and because like many people in society, you Ready Fire Aim, you attack before even thinking through the issues. I have spent more years thinking about ethics and living them (to personal detriment and voluntary sacrifice) while you and many others cheered Big Tech and Web3 projects which are destructive to humanity, because it was the thing du jour at the time. So please take your lazy approach to outrage somewhere else or get a little humility.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "If you don’t like this level of deceit, you’re going to hate nearly all applications of Generative AI because they do far worse and on a far larger scale." Nope, if ChatGPT generates me some code that I can use for a real problem, or a generates product description for a friends buisness, than this is generating real value and no fake, no deceiving, no lie. What value for society is your buisness adding? "1) Pray tell, how did the forums grow from zero discussion to being a vibrant place, without some team of people “astroturfing” discussion?" By people sharing genuine interests. Not everything is a lie. But you are right, too much is already. So it is in no way ethical to add more lies to the pie.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    If ChatGPT generates an essay for you, or a homework assignment, that IS fake, sorry. You didn’t do your homework. You didn’t write the essay. You’re passing it off like you did. If MidJourney “painted” your painting, and you pass it off as your own to others, you’re lying. This guy won a photography contest with a non-real photo: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/artificial-intelligence-photo-competition-won-rejected-award-ai-boris-eldagsen-sony-world-photography-awards/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/artificial-intelligence-pho... He was honest enough to reveal it and reject the prize. But had he not done that, humans and honest photos would be out of the running just as if a chessplayee with a hiddenchess engine entered a tournament. It’s cheating, plain and simple. If you were honest, you’d reveal how you did the job and allow the people to choose whether to even have you in the loop, or continue to pay you as much. Even your product description example is fake - the AI didn’t experience the product, didn’t use it, can’t vouch for anything in the product. At least you are in the loop and spot-check the work for accuracy before submitting it. But an AI “describing” a product it has never seen is inherently as fake as a photograph of a scene that never happened. That is what generative AI does. It allows you to generate things without doing the work. I’m not talking about compilers of higher-level languages. I’m talking about literally not doing as much of the work as you want. Like the whole essay. You practice nothing. You cheat yourself. That in itself is bad but the much worse part is that people will be offered SERVICES to do it at scale. THAT IS THE PROMISE OF ALL APPLICATIONS OF GENERATIVE AI: to generate good looking results at scale! You claim to be appalled by a service that does what nearly every single forum owner already did with human workers. Why aren’t you grasping that this is the raison d’etre of the vast majority of AI applicatioms? You disingenuously listed a use case where you just logged into a UI an used it yourself, but obviously the APIs of OpenAI are offered to applications to do this at scale. Mine is just one of the most ethical ways to do it. I voluntarily put guardrails into it. But nearly EVERY OTHER USE OF THE API is of this nature but far worse. And yes I’d rather MY service get adoption than a far less scrupulous one. The value it is adding is generating discussion around topics that would otherwise receive no traction not becauae they aren’t interesting or the article not well researched and presented but because they don’t have “social capital” or a swarm of people fake-liking and fake-upvoting it. Here on HN and all other platforms those that have a few such people have an advantage. How do you think every single piece of content they post gets massive upvotes and likes? This levels the playing field for people who don’t have money to hire fake shillers and employ a team of humans to deceive others, in what is inherently a deceptive activity (astroturfing). Now everyone can have lots of interesting hooks for discussion, and the bots are clearly labeled as bots! Unlike many times the friends and employees of the owner don’t bother to disclose their relationship. It actually improves the situation in that respect vs the human shill team. That is just some of the value it gives, and then it will also soon answer helpdesk questions. I can bet you that you will be talking to a lot of bots soon for helpdesk questions, who won’t reveal they are bots — and somehow you won’t be shaming all those companies — it’ll become the norm, many people will be fooled into thinking that a real human took the time to emphathize with them and patiently help them, and they’ll treat the service nicely and pay them more according to that misunderstanding of “white glove service” rather than treating it as the cheap commodity that it is. In fact that’s at the heart of capitalism and the profit motive… when a new technology appears, or a consultant automates their own job, they keep quiet about it so they can still collect the profit as others think they are doing it all by hand. Employees who do this know they will be fired or they pay cut if they automated themselves out of a job. Capitalism breeds many inherently dishonest motivations, and also greed and jealousy of course. Having said that… you also totally ignored my request to answer point by point the numbered points. You seem to be arguing in bad faith since you are quick to shame others and do not seem to be actually resolve any misunderstandings or disagreements. Answer the points I raised in your next response, or it will be obvious to everyone that you’re dodging 99% of the substance in order to make a tortured point which is, by and large, completely the opposite of reality.

EGreg 4y ago

You are wrong on all accounts, but I am glad you added the edit, at least. You are starting to understand. Before jumping to conclusions on a holier-than-thou high horse as if you already know everything coming in, please answer point by point: 1) Pray tell, how did the forums grow from zero discussion to being a vibrant place, without some team of people “astroturfing” discussion? 2) Did they disclose in every message that they were working for money or out of friendship with the owner, rather than because of their genuine interest in 30 topics monthly? 3) If they disclosed their role in their profile, would you consider that ethical enough? Because that is exactly what is going on here. 4) Many people are too lazy to even check the profile, which is how they respond in full earnestness and outrage to Parody accounts on Twitter. Should Parody accounts keep saying “<sarcasm> blah blah </sarcasm>” in every message because people are lazy? 5) If you don’t like this level of deceit, you’re going to hate nearly all applications of Generative AI because they do far worse and on a far larger scale. Think those photographs are from a real scene? Think that heartfelt letter was written just to you? Think that is your family member begging to send money to a certain crypto address? Think again. This is one of the least bad things that can be done with Generative AI. Of course you won’t come out and attack most other uses of generative AI because they won’t disclose it to you, and because like many people in society, you Ready Fire Aim, you attack before even thinking through the issues. I have spent more years thinking about ethics and living them (to personal detriment and voluntary sacrifice) while you and many others cheered Big Tech and Web3 projects which are destructive to humanity, because it was the thing du jour at the time. So please take your lazy approach to outrage somewhere else or get a little humility.

hutzlibu 4y ago
"If you don’t like this level of deceit, you’re going to hate nearly all applications of Generative AI because they do far worse and on a far larger scale." Nope, if ChatGPT generates me some code that I can use for a real problem, or a generates product description for a friends buisness, than this is generating real value and no fake, no deceiving, no lie. What value for society is your buisness adding? "1) Pray tell, how did the forums grow from zero discussion to being a vibrant place, without some team of people “astroturfing” discussion?" By people sharing genuine interests. Not everything is a lie. But you are right, too much is already. So it is in no way ethical to add more lies to the pie.
- EGreg 4y ago
  If ChatGPT generates an essay for you, or a homework assignment, that IS fake, sorry. You didn’t do your homework. You didn’t write the essay. You’re passing it off like you did. If MidJourney “painted” your painting, and you pass it off as your own to others, you’re lying. This guy won a photography contest with a non-real photo: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/artificial-intelligence-photo-competition-won-rejected-award-ai-boris-eldagsen-sony-world-photography-awards/ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/artificial-intelligence-pho... He was honest enough to reveal it and reject the prize. But had he not done that, humans and honest photos would be out of the running just as if a chessplayee with a hiddenchess engine entered a tournament. It’s cheating, plain and simple. If you were honest, you’d reveal how you did the job and allow the people to choose whether to even have you in the loop, or continue to pay you as much. Even your product description example is fake - the AI didn’t experience the product, didn’t use it, can’t vouch for anything in the product. At least you are in the loop and spot-check the work for accuracy before submitting it. But an AI “describing” a product it has never seen is inherently as fake as a photograph of a scene that never happened. That is what generative AI does. It allows you to generate things without doing the work. I’m not talking about compilers of higher-level languages. I’m talking about literally not doing as much of the work as you want. Like the whole essay. You practice nothing. You cheat yourself. That in itself is bad but the much worse part is that people will be offered SERVICES to do it at scale. THAT IS THE PROMISE OF ALL APPLICATIONS OF GENERATIVE AI: to generate good looking results at scale! You claim to be appalled by a service that does what nearly every single forum owner already did with human workers. Why aren’t you grasping that this is the raison d’etre of the vast majority of AI applicatioms? You disingenuously listed a use case where you just logged into a UI an used it yourself, but obviously the APIs of OpenAI are offered to applications to do this at scale. Mine is just one of the most ethical ways to do it. I voluntarily put guardrails into it. But nearly EVERY OTHER USE OF THE API is of this nature but far worse. And yes I’d rather MY service get adoption than a far less scrupulous one. The value it is adding is generating discussion around topics that would otherwise receive no traction not becauae they aren’t interesting or the article not well researched and presented but because they don’t have “social capital” or a swarm of people fake-liking and fake-upvoting it. Here on HN and all other platforms those that have a few such people have an advantage. How do you think every single piece of content they post gets massive upvotes and likes? This levels the playing field for people who don’t have money to hire fake shillers and employ a team of humans to deceive others, in what is inherently a deceptive activity (astroturfing). Now everyone can have lots of interesting hooks for discussion, and the bots are clearly labeled as bots! Unlike many times the friends and employees of the owner don’t bother to disclose their relationship. It actually improves the situation in that respect vs the human shill team. That is just some of the value it gives, and then it will also soon answer helpdesk questions. I can bet you that you will be talking to a lot of bots soon for helpdesk questions, who won’t reveal they are bots — and somehow you won’t be shaming all those companies — it’ll become the norm, many people will be fooled into thinking that a real human took the time to emphathize with them and patiently help them, and they’ll treat the service nicely and pay them more according to that misunderstanding of “white glove service” rather than treating it as the cheap commodity that it is. In fact that’s at the heart of capitalism and the profit motive… when a new technology appears, or a consultant automates their own job, they keep quiet about it so they can still collect the profit as others think they are doing it all by hand. Employees who do this know they will be fired or they pay cut if they automated themselves out of a job. Capitalism breeds many inherently dishonest motivations, and also greed and jealousy of course. Having said that… you also totally ignored my request to answer point by point the numbered points. You seem to be arguing in bad faith since you are quick to shame others and do not seem to be actually resolve any misunderstandings or disagreements. Answer the points I raised in your next response, or it will be obvious to everyone that you’re dodging 99% of the substance in order to make a tortured point which is, by and large, completely the opposite of reality.