6 ms·

This is a silly take, I think. The point is that people pay to have a genuine interaction. If everything is fake, why interact at all? Imagine you were typing

by EGreg 2y ago

This is a silly take, I think. The point is that people pay to have a genuine interaction. If everything is fake, why interact at all? Imagine you were typing into the void and no one saw what you said. Would you continue doing it if you knew? How about on this forum?

JSteph22 2y ago
If I use AI to generate the text of a happy birthday greeting to grandma, if I review and approve of the message, is it genuine?
- nosbo 2y ago
  I would say no.
  - taberiand 2y ago
    What if you use it to give you ideas and you come up with your own greeting. And then you generate one more, and it's the greeting you came up with.
- hamandcheese 2y ago
  Humans have been doing this long before AI. It's called Hallmark. (and no, it's not genuine)
  - chongli 2y ago
    Hallmark cards tend to leave a lot of blank space to write. It’s absolutely genuine when you grab a pen and start writing. Bonus points if the Hallmark message is relevant to the person receiving it and maybe something you can riff on in the handwritten part. Funny cards are also great! So I would say the golden rule continues to apply: the more effort is visible, the more genuine it is.
    - User23 2y ago
      You could even say that Hallmark is giving you a prompt.
- kergonath 2y ago
  If you paid someone to do it for you, is it genuine? Ghostwriting birthday cards is…quite grim, whether that’s an AI or not.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  To me, yes. Key point being, "if I review and approve of the message" - if you actually do this, then yes. Being genuine is all about how much actual care and heart you pour into thing. That's really something only you can truly know. Using generative AI doesn't automatically make it not genuine, much like using a grammar checker or a thesaurus doesn't. Conversely, not using AI tools doesn't suddenly make YouTube and OnlyFan creators' comments genuine. They never were. There is no care and heart in there, only salesmanship, and it's most likely outsourced to a brand management company anyway.
  - consp 2y ago
    Only if you also tell me you did. Then I know I'm not worth your time.
  - strogonoff 2y ago
    I recently went to an social interest group meeting. It begins with a presentation, which is generally confirmed in advance by the organizer based on a text abstract of the planned presentation submitted by a future presenter. This time, the presentation turned out to be staggeringly bad, mostly consisting of filler words and interjections, and presenter was struggling to express even the basic idea. I could not fathom how that could happen, considering the idea was presumably expressed in the abstract. I had to write one before, and felt annoying and difficult to write down what I felt was all ready to be said in my head, but as a result I knew what I wanted to say and how I could say it when in front of a dozen of people. At some point, the organizer (to help situation) quoted from the abstract that was submitted, and it was indeed apparently decently written. After that, I could not help thinking that the likelihood the abstract was written by an LLM is very high. In that case, the presenter certainly reviewed it, but crucially did not write it—the thought process that makes the idea part of your active vocabulary, and you capable of expressing it, would not have taken place. To reiterate, I don’t know whether it happened or not, but even if no LLM was involved in this instance (perhaps it was just a particularly violent case of stage fright, despite the event being very small and the IRL vibe extremely casual) it would be beyond silly to assume that it would not be happening going forward. I used to think that it is beneficial if an LLM can help in handling certain boring signaling communication for people who are very bad at it, acting as a sort of an equalizer. A model writes stuff, you approve it, and you gain access somewhere without having, say, the written language flair of someone who went to a prestigious school, or having to spend time on something that seems unnecessary. I am changing my mind now. Sure, the case I have described is one of the more extreme ones, but it made me think how signals are actually signals for a reason[0], and when some signals go away the communication field does not become equalized—instead, other signals and barriers are used: money, IRL meetings, invitation, some sort of privacy-violating invasive check of humanity, etc., or the communication that relied on some signals before would simply not happen now. When the Web and tech in general had removed a whole lot of constraints on communication, we still could rely on those signals, but that is apparently coming to an end. Writing a birthday card is another endangered signal. The impression from the movies, how these gestures become very cheap if they come from some rich CEO who certainly has a personal assistant for this sort of stuff, now applies to everyone (including people who would never touch an LLM with a ten foot pole). Once we all know that a birthday card can be reduced to “I have read and approved this message”, as social beings we won’t stop needing the psychological impact of such positive gestures—we only stop receiving it. I am not sure I see all of the above as positive (even if in the latter case I am slightly optimistic that some viable substitute for those signals could be found within personal relationships). [0] Even that reason is dubious, like discrimination by a social criteria, well then that’s not going to go anywhere. Tech is not going to solve that human problem, besides perhaps a very fleeting handful of months when some techies gain edge while everyone is still catching on. New barriers will be erected, the core problem left unaddressed.
dragoncheats 2y ago
I actually been in this exact scenario before. I and another friend were avidly into Hearthstone, and another third person was playing with an Hearthstone Cheat bot in an University study room. We asked to watch for a while. After a while, some dread was setting in. We started asking questions: * Why did it hover that card? "To pretend it's human. The card has less than 10% playrate on that class" * Did it... just spam the Well Met meme while going face? "Of course. Because people do it" * Wait it ropes the opponents? "Yes. You can set it to rope back" We kept seeing more and more behaviors. It would squelch noisy opponents. It would even tap the ground pretending to be a bored person. And then it hit me: 95% of Hearthstone players are bots. Every single human behavior that you could perhaps use to identify 'people', it faked. I quit Hearthstone within that week.
- eastbound 2y ago
  People looking for dates on Tinder. Yes more than 70% of Tinder profiles are already probably bots at this time. The CEO said they had an AI strategy. People will be more and more lonely.
  - bboygravity 2y ago
    It's hard for me to understand how Tinder is not dead yet. One big pile of pop-up ads (even when you pay you get upsell popups) and some Chinese scammer bots.
    - aboardRat4 2y ago
      It's even more of a shame that OkCupid is dead. They had such a nice method, which was actually introducing good people to me.
      - Tknl 2y ago
        I'd argue that what Match Group did with OKC was bordering on criminal. Everything on it worked and it worked for small, often marginalized groups. It was turned into a worse version of tender.
tanewishly 2y ago
Honestly, if more people wondered about who'll read what they write online, and whether it matters that those folks read it, the Internet would probably be a better place. I really don't care about youtubers using tools like this. If it works for them and saves them time: great! If it reduces their level of authenticity: that'll lead to a correction of their popularity. For OnlyFans... meuh. To me, the idea of interaction there reminds me strongly of the "adult" phone lines of old. You want someone to tease you and say naughty things to you? Well, you can get that for 99 cents/minute. If you want to buy the attention of someone specific, when they can let someone/something else do that for cents on the dollar... don't be surprised to be tricked.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  I think that is the point of this article. On only fans people are paying extra for individual specific attention. But AI can be good enough to fool people that are specifically looking for that experience. Sure, free market view, if the automated chat isn't good enough then it will lead to people leaving. The point is, it is good enough. Don't think anybody is complaining that people on only fans are being duped, maybe more concerning that if you can have realistic video and chat, and people are being fooled, then there is some wider impacts on society. Large chunks of people could get fooled by any number of relationships that aren't real.
pjc50 2y ago
> pay to have a genuine interaction If you're paying for it, how genuine is it really?
- bornfreddy 2y ago
  Depends on the price.
osigurdson 2y ago
I wonder if signed content will ultimately be needed?

by EGreg 2y ago

JSteph22 2y ago

If I use AI to generate the text of a happy birthday greeting to grandma, if I review and approve of the message, is it genuine?

nosbo 2y ago
I would say no.
- taberiand 2y ago
  What if you use it to give you ideas and you come up with your own greeting. And then you generate one more, and it's the greeting you came up with.
hamandcheese 2y ago
Humans have been doing this long before AI. It's called Hallmark. (and no, it's not genuine)
- chongli 2y ago
  Hallmark cards tend to leave a lot of blank space to write. It’s absolutely genuine when you grab a pen and start writing. Bonus points if the Hallmark message is relevant to the person receiving it and maybe something you can riff on in the handwritten part. Funny cards are also great! So I would say the golden rule continues to apply: the more effort is visible, the more genuine it is.
  - User23 2y ago
    You could even say that Hallmark is giving you a prompt.
kergonath 2y ago
If you paid someone to do it for you, is it genuine? Ghostwriting birthday cards is…quite grim, whether that’s an AI or not.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
To me, yes. Key point being, "if I review and approve of the message" - if you actually do this, then yes. Being genuine is all about how much actual care and heart you pour into thing. That's really something only you can truly know. Using generative AI doesn't automatically make it not genuine, much like using a grammar checker or a thesaurus doesn't. Conversely, not using AI tools doesn't suddenly make YouTube and OnlyFan creators' comments genuine. They never were. There is no care and heart in there, only salesmanship, and it's most likely outsourced to a brand management company anyway.
- consp 2y ago
  Only if you also tell me you did. Then I know I'm not worth your time.
- strogonoff 2y ago
  I recently went to an social interest group meeting. It begins with a presentation, which is generally confirmed in advance by the organizer based on a text abstract of the planned presentation submitted by a future presenter. This time, the presentation turned out to be staggeringly bad, mostly consisting of filler words and interjections, and presenter was struggling to express even the basic idea. I could not fathom how that could happen, considering the idea was presumably expressed in the abstract. I had to write one before, and felt annoying and difficult to write down what I felt was all ready to be said in my head, but as a result I knew what I wanted to say and how I could say it when in front of a dozen of people. At some point, the organizer (to help situation) quoted from the abstract that was submitted, and it was indeed apparently decently written. After that, I could not help thinking that the likelihood the abstract was written by an LLM is very high. In that case, the presenter certainly reviewed it, but crucially did not write it—the thought process that makes the idea part of your active vocabulary, and you capable of expressing it, would not have taken place. To reiterate, I don’t know whether it happened or not, but even if no LLM was involved in this instance (perhaps it was just a particularly violent case of stage fright, despite the event being very small and the IRL vibe extremely casual) it would be beyond silly to assume that it would not be happening going forward. I used to think that it is beneficial if an LLM can help in handling certain boring signaling communication for people who are very bad at it, acting as a sort of an equalizer. A model writes stuff, you approve it, and you gain access somewhere without having, say, the written language flair of someone who went to a prestigious school, or having to spend time on something that seems unnecessary. I am changing my mind now. Sure, the case I have described is one of the more extreme ones, but it made me think how signals are actually signals for a reason[0], and when some signals go away the communication field does not become equalized—instead, other signals and barriers are used: money, IRL meetings, invitation, some sort of privacy-violating invasive check of humanity, etc., or the communication that relied on some signals before would simply not happen now. When the Web and tech in general had removed a whole lot of constraints on communication, we still could rely on those signals, but that is apparently coming to an end. Writing a birthday card is another endangered signal. The impression from the movies, how these gestures become very cheap if they come from some rich CEO who certainly has a personal assistant for this sort of stuff, now applies to everyone (including people who would never touch an LLM with a ten foot pole). Once we all know that a birthday card can be reduced to “I have read and approved this message”, as social beings we won’t stop needing the psychological impact of such positive gestures—we only stop receiving it. I am not sure I see all of the above as positive (even if in the latter case I am slightly optimistic that some viable substitute for those signals could be found within personal relationships). [0] Even that reason is dubious, like discrimination by a social criteria, well then that’s not going to go anywhere. Tech is not going to solve that human problem, besides perhaps a very fleeting handful of months when some techies gain edge while everyone is still catching on. New barriers will be erected, the core problem left unaddressed.

dragoncheats 2y ago

I actually been in this exact scenario before. I and another friend were avidly into Hearthstone, and another third person was playing with an Hearthstone Cheat bot in an University study room. We asked to watch for a while. After a while, some dread was setting in. We started asking questions: * Why did it hover that card? "To pretend it's human. The card has less than 10% playrate on that class" * Did it... just spam the Well Met meme while going face? "Of course. Because people do it" * Wait it ropes the opponents? "Yes. You can set it to rope back" We kept seeing more and more behaviors. It would squelch noisy opponents. It would even tap the ground pretending to be a bored person. And then it hit me: 95% of Hearthstone players are bots. Every single human behavior that you could perhaps use to identify 'people', it faked. I quit Hearthstone within that week.

eastbound 2y ago
People looking for dates on Tinder. Yes more than 70% of Tinder profiles are already probably bots at this time. The CEO said they had an AI strategy. People will be more and more lonely.
- bboygravity 2y ago
  It's hard for me to understand how Tinder is not dead yet. One big pile of pop-up ads (even when you pay you get upsell popups) and some Chinese scammer bots.
  - aboardRat4 2y ago
    It's even more of a shame that OkCupid is dead. They had such a nice method, which was actually introducing good people to me.
    - Tknl 2y ago
      I'd argue that what Match Group did with OKC was bordering on criminal. Everything on it worked and it worked for small, often marginalized groups. It was turned into a worse version of tender.

tanewishly 2y ago

Honestly, if more people wondered about who'll read what they write online, and whether it matters that those folks read it, the Internet would probably be a better place. I really don't care about youtubers using tools like this. If it works for them and saves them time: great! If it reduces their level of authenticity: that'll lead to a correction of their popularity. For OnlyFans... meuh. To me, the idea of interaction there reminds me strongly of the "adult" phone lines of old. You want someone to tease you and say naughty things to you? Well, you can get that for 99 cents/minute. If you want to buy the attention of someone specific, when they can let someone/something else do that for cents on the dollar... don't be surprised to be tricked.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
I think that is the point of this article. On only fans people are paying extra for individual specific attention. But AI can be good enough to fool people that are specifically looking for that experience. Sure, free market view, if the automated chat isn't good enough then it will lead to people leaving. The point is, it is good enough. Don't think anybody is complaining that people on only fans are being duped, maybe more concerning that if you can have realistic video and chat, and people are being fooled, then there is some wider impacts on society. Large chunks of people could get fooled by any number of relationships that aren't real.

pjc50 2y ago

> pay to have a genuine interaction If you're paying for it, how genuine is it really?

bornfreddy 2y ago
Depends on the price.

osigurdson 2y ago

I wonder if signed content will ultimately be needed?