3 ms·

Dude, or ma’am, thank you for mentioning these obviously-sponsored tweets. How do they guarantee hundreds or thousands of likes? Presumably the only reason the

Dude, or ma’am, thank you for mentioning these obviously-sponsored tweets. How do they guarantee hundreds or thousands of likes? Presumably the only reason the algorithm keeps showing them to me is that they’re popular. Otherwise they’d be labeled “sponsored”. The points are always so bad, too. I asked Bard to summarize one of my repos, and it hallucinated that it was an http server written in Go. My repo didn’t have a single .go file. “Internet-connected AI” is just mistaken.

trasz4 3y ago
Twitter doesn't mark bot accounts as sponsored. As to how - many ways, some of them really creative. One that I remember was an account that's reposting stuff that I genuinely liked, some left-wing activist content, and only now and then they would push something different, like a message about how this one time brand X turned out to be crap during a manifa.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  Most of the hype bots aren't labeled as bots. They are run covertly, and replaced when they get burned.
jeroenvlek 3y ago
Had a similar experience. Asked Bard to generate a Firefox plugin and it responded that it was a text-based assistant and couldn't comply [1] whereas ChatGPT just did it. It didn't work, but it still generated it. [1] https://twitter.com/jeroenvlek/status/1657195209686683648 https://twitter.com/jeroenvlek/status/1657195209686683648
- trasz4 3y ago
  >It didn't work, but it still generated it. So neither could generate the plugin, it's just that one of them lied about it.
  - jeroenvlek 3y ago
    No, I suspect it's more the case that ChatGPT could generate it anno 2021, but can't anymore due changes in Chromium (I switched to Edge ultimately) and the Gmail API and Google Cloud Credentials workflow that I tried to add to it later. It was interesting to see that ChatGPT annotated its code with pitfalls to avoid, that it actually didn't avoid in the code.
    - trasz4 3y ago
      >No, I suspect it's more the case that ChatGPT could generate it anno 2021 Why? I mean, why does it sound more plausible to you that it ever could, when we have countless examples of models lying (or rather hallucinating)?
      - jeroenvlek 3y ago
        Because it was trained on old documentation, but I see your point. My original point was also not necessarily that ChatGPT was correct, but that ChatGPT at least gave something to work with, whereas Bard simlly refused.
    - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
      Just like a real human;)
    - badrequest 3y ago
      The company I work for is building a browser extension that involves ChatGPT, and we can unfortunately confirm that it is, in fact, not capable of writing browser extension code.
throwwwaway69 3y ago
They carefully flood their tweets with likes from bot farms and once there’s a lot of inorganic activity it leads to a ton of visibility and therefore further organic activity

trasz4 3y ago

Twitter doesn't mark bot accounts as sponsored. As to how - many ways, some of them really creative. One that I remember was an account that's reposting stuff that I genuinely liked, some left-wing activist content, and only now and then they would push something different, like a message about how this one time brand X turned out to be crap during a manifa.

pclmulqdq 3y ago
Most of the hype bots aren't labeled as bots. They are run covertly, and replaced when they get burned.

jeroenvlek 3y ago

Had a similar experience. Asked Bard to generate a Firefox plugin and it responded that it was a text-based assistant and couldn't comply [1] whereas ChatGPT just did it. It didn't work, but it still generated it. [1] https://twitter.com/jeroenvlek/status/1657195209686683648 https://twitter.com/jeroenvlek/status/1657195209686683648

trasz4 3y ago
>It didn't work, but it still generated it. So neither could generate the plugin, it's just that one of them lied about it.
- jeroenvlek 3y ago
  No, I suspect it's more the case that ChatGPT could generate it anno 2021, but can't anymore due changes in Chromium (I switched to Edge ultimately) and the Gmail API and Google Cloud Credentials workflow that I tried to add to it later. It was interesting to see that ChatGPT annotated its code with pitfalls to avoid, that it actually didn't avoid in the code.
  - trasz4 3y ago
    >No, I suspect it's more the case that ChatGPT could generate it anno 2021 Why? I mean, why does it sound more plausible to you that it ever could, when we have countless examples of models lying (or rather hallucinating)?
    - jeroenvlek 3y ago
      Because it was trained on old documentation, but I see your point. My original point was also not necessarily that ChatGPT was correct, but that ChatGPT at least gave something to work with, whereas Bard simlly refused.
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    Just like a real human;)
  - badrequest 3y ago
    The company I work for is building a browser extension that involves ChatGPT, and we can unfortunately confirm that it is, in fact, not capable of writing browser extension code.

throwwwaway69 3y ago

They carefully flood their tweets with likes from bot farms and once there’s a lot of inorganic activity it leads to a ton of visibility and therefore further organic activity