3 ms·
LLMs have benefits, but it's a real negative that you can no longer be sure if you are communicating with a human on the internet or reading something which was
by metabagel 2y ago
LLMs have benefits, but it's a real negative that you can no longer be sure if you are communicating with a human on the internet or reading something which was written by a human.
It seems like public keys and web of trust are the future in terms of knowing that there is a human on the other end of the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signing_party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signing_party
But, I don't know what happens when a cloud of LLMs get their own public keys signed by some humans.
- metabagel 2y agoIn many cases, you can still tell when an article was written by an LLM, but I think that window is closing fast.
- jkaplowitz 2y agoIn some senses it already has, though not always how you meant: I was once accused of using ChatGPT to write a Reddit comment that I genuinely wrote myself without AI assistance. (I think the person disliked the substance of what I was arguing, the length of my comment, or both.)
- suprjami 2y agoGosh is that the next level? 2015: Search for something you've forgotten and find your own old post/comment explaining how to do it. 2025: Ask an LLM for something you've forgotten and have your own old post/comment read back to you.
- fragmede 2y agoWe need a new version of https://xkcd.com/979/ https://xkcd.com/979/
- fragmede 2y agoI've been accused of the same, but I just like writing. Wasn't sure how to respond to those allegations other than to say I'm not using ChatGPT to write my comment. consider it an achievement unlocked.
- maeil 2y agoIt's becoming rather common. Saw it on LinkedIn a couple of days ago by someone posting an image of a job application, accusing it of using ChatGPT when it clearly wasn't. Incredibly ironic. People who couldn't even tell apart a "multifaceted" if their lives depended on it but make these wild accusations.
- c1sc0 2y agoBut what about “assisted by” AI? Plenty of people use LLMs to enhance their writing abilities, like, say, ‘90s era grammar & spell check. Plenty of AI users are sophisticated enough to understand that dumping pure AI-Gen content is a bad idea. And what’s wrong with AI-enhanced speach?
- nullc 2y agoWorse, OpenAI LLM pathologies are creeping into text written by actual humans because people are seeing so much garbage written by it that they're adopting its behavior. Turns out that there is more than one kind of learning machine in play online and both can pick up the bad behavior of the other.
- maeil 2y agoThat's nothing new. Actual humans have been writing businessy LinkedIn posts this way long before GPT-3 came out. I'd even say such posts are even more awful than what GPT produces by default.
- chris-orgmenta 2y agoI see those as the lazy ones that are the tip of the iceberg. A non-zero amount will even be intentionally lazy (analogous to the Nigerian Prince theory), or to get feedback from people flagging them. I think the sensible assumption is that there is a 'rest of the iceberg' growing rapidly below the surface, and that the horse has truly bolted. I currently suspect that ~1-5% of the 'people' I interact with online are LLMs. I suspect that a few Redditors and Facebookers are up to about ~10-25% without realising it, caught in 'AI social media eddies'. Older generations especially susceptible.
- bosch_mind 2y agoYou’re only thinking of charGPT, not finely tuned conversation models
- petersteinberg 2y agoImagine how much better an article written by one of the big LLMs would be if it were stylistically trained exclusively on an archive of the past 30 years of New York Times articles? I would expect the powers that be at the New York Times are exploring this very option as we speak.
- nuc1e0n 2y agoEven if you are reading something written by a human on the internet that's still no guarantee of trustworthiness.
- SkyPuncher 2y agoWhat would public keys solve? We already have these with domains and SSL certificates. Many messaging apps also support keys.
- Nasrudith 2y agoPublic keys and web of trust as a solution to content validity seems to be a strangely common misconception of what "authentication" actually means. All you would get at very most is "this was vouched for by a human", not an actual guarantee of humanity. Once the WoT grows past a certain point it will be of dubious value. Furthermore, people would happily "sell their souls" into signing off on any ole bullshit for money. Let alone doing it for free if they think their violence towards the truth would be ideologically aligned. Any attempts at curing it frankly may be undesirable due to being worse than the disease.
- CRConrad 2y ago> Once the Wheel of Time grows past a certain point... Oh, wait, you weren't talking about Robert Jordan's fantasy series. My bad. Yet another proof I'm old, yet another acronym to re-learn to keep up with the times... Sigh.
- catoc 2y agoYeah, remember when crypto used to mean cryptography…
- Terr_ 2y agoA side-rant on another naming thing: People are already promoting traditional distributed databases as "private blockchains", which is a bit like announcing "Radium Toothpaste now without Isotopes." They didn't solve the difficult trade-offs of New Thing, they're just relaxing their requirements so that they don't have to use it at all (reasonable) and don't want to admit it (annoying.)
- Terr_ 2y agoThe Eye of The World was published in 1990, and PGP 2.0 was released in 1992, so they're not really that different in age. :p
- CRConrad 2y ago
- chii 2y ago> a real negative that you can no longer be sure if you are communicating with a human on the internet or reading something which was written by a human why does the pedigree matter if the content stands on its own as valid content? Do you care that your call is answered by someone in india, or the US, if you are given sufficient answer/support with the call?
- tetris11 2y agoIf the AI can update its beliefs based on a conversation, then yes it would still be a win. If not, you're talking to a very articulate thick-headed person who can argue you into a corner by deploying all manner of argumentative/persuasive patterns, but may never try to reach across the table for a compromise.
- yesco 2y agoI've certainly "won" some arguments with ChatGPT and Claude, even when I specifically tried to instruct them to never yield (to make it interesting). Even most of the "rules" they need to follow from their system level prompt can often be worked around with enough persuasion. If anything I'd go so far to say that LLMs are innately more vulnerable to persuasion than humans are, they are technically just a complex text completion algorithm at the end of the day after all. Even with the strictest system prompt, the best they can do when cornered is bend the knee, devolve into a pattern of verbatim repeating themselves or just start spewing a bunch of gibberish in the worst case. In reality stubborn thickheaded folks who refuse to compromise are pretty much the norm across social media in my experience, so even if LLMs really are capable of what you're suggesting here I don't believe there would actually be much of a difference to the status quo.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tetris11 2y agoI've won arguments against ChatGPT where it told me that it would remember the info for next time, but ultimately reset to the models last state unless I repeated the conversation