6 ms·

This is the ultimate propaganda machine, no? We’re social creatures, chatbots already act as friends and advisors for many people. Seems like a pretty good ve

by ed 2y ago

This is the ultimate propaganda machine, no? We’re social creatures, chatbots already act as friends and advisors for many people. Seems like a pretty good vector for a social attack.

echelon 2y ago
The more the public has access to these tools, the more they'll develop useful scar tissue and muscle memory. We need people to be constantly exposed to bots so that they understand the new nature of digital information. When the automobile was developed, we had to train kids not to play in the streets. We didn't put kids or cars in bubbles. When photoshop came out, we developed a vernacular around edited images. "Photoshopped" became a verb. We'll be able to survive this too. The more exposure we have, the better.
- Steen3S 2y ago
  Please inform the EU about this.
- ed 2y ago
  Early traffic laws were actually created in response to child pedestrian deaths (7000 in 1925). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-06-10/how-cities-responded-to-traffic-deaths-100-years-ago https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-06-10/how-citie...
  - echelon 2y ago
    Of course. The point I was making is that in the 19th century, roads were multifunctional spaces shared by merchants, horses, carts, wagons, playing children, performers, etc. The introduction of the automobile kicked all of these use cases off of the roads. While pedestrians have the right of way, the roads henceforth belonged to the "devil wagons". We also started to shift blame over to pedestrians for jaywalking. They no longer own the roads.
- pennomi 2y ago
  Right. You know how your grandmother falls for those “you have a virus” popups but you don’t? That’s because society adapts to the challenges of the day. I’m sure our kids and grandchildren will be more immune to these new types of scams.
- imiric 2y ago
  Your analogies don't quite align with this technology. We've had exposure to propaganda and disinformation for many decades, long before the internet became their primary medium, yet people don't learn to become immune to them. They're more effective now than they've ever been, and AI tools will only make them more so. Arguing that more exposure will somehow magically solve these problems is delusional at best, and dangerous at worst. There are other key differences from past technologies: - Most took years to decades to develop and gain mass adoption. This time is critical for society and governments to adapt to them. This adoption rate has been accelerating, but modern AI tech development is particularly fast. Governments can barely keep up to decide how this should be regulated, let alone people. When you consider that this tech is coming from companies that pioneered the "move fast and break things" mentality, in an industry drunk on greed and hubris, it should give everyone a cause for concern. - AI has the potential to disrupt many industries, not just one. But further than that, it raises deep existential questions about our humanity, the value of human work, how our economic and education systems are structured, etc. These are not problems we can solve overnight. Turning a blind eye to them and vouching for less regulations and more exposure is simply irresponsible.
  - echelon 2y ago
    > vouching for less regulations and more exposure is simply irresponsible. We let people buy 6,000 pound vehicles capable of traveling 100+ mph. We let people buy sharp knives and guns. And heat their homes with flammable gas. And hike up dangerous tall mountains. I think the LLM is the least of society's worries and this pervasive thinking that everything needs to be wrapped up in bubble wrap is what is actually dangerous. Can a thought be dangerous? Should we prevent people from thinking or being exposed to certain things? That sounds far more Orwellian. If you want to criminalize illegal use of LLMs for fraud, then do that. But don't make the technology inaccessible and patronize people by telling them they're not smart enough to understand the danger. This is not a "fragile world" technology in its current form. When they're embodied, walking around, and killing people, then you can sound the alarm.
    - cbg0 2y ago
      Quite a lot of whataboutisms and straw men in your post, let's stick to LLMs, as that was the original topic.
- Rastonbury 2y ago
  Counter point the number of supposedly educated people falling into social media echo chambers parroting partisan views, sharing on ramps, recommending supplements. They obviously do not see the harm, if fact they feel superior, feeling the need to educate and lecture. The vector here was social media, the vector here is reliance on chatbots. I mildly trust the big player like Anthropic and even OpenAI, but imagine the talking head influencers/supplement peddlers making and promoting a un-woke chatbot. People are already relying on chatgpt to navigate medical conditions, personal/relationship issues
  - echelon 2y ago
    I feel my response here [1] also applies to you. People are going to do these things anyway. We've had "yellow journalism" since the 1800s. It's a tale as old as time. What right do we have to go around policing other people's minds? When I grew up, the Internet was an escape from the puritanical censorship of the southern baptists I was surrounded with. It was a bastion of free information and idea exchange. If the prevailing ethos of the 2000s wasn't so anti-censorship, I wouldn't have gotten outside of my own filter bubble and found a way to explore other ideas. I would have been chased away as an undesirable member of the opposition and muted, censored, and banned. Thank god the algorithm didn't exist back then. The things we do to each other in today's internet are abhorrent. Both sides of the political spectrum attempt to constrain what the other side can do. We need to stop that. It's petty and increases polarization. And that's exactly what's happening with your suggestion - you're wanting to censor ideas and things you don't like that presumably this technology will be used to promote. Please stop thinking LLMs are an agent of the enemy to convert more people to their causes. The opposite is also true. And the impact won't be as extreme or dire as you make it out to be - heaven forbid people buy more vitamins. Oh, the humanity. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42499972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42499972
    - ben_w 2y ago
      If yellow journalism is bad, is not fully automated and personalised yellow journalism worse?
  - 2y ago
- ok654321 2y ago
  [dead]

by ed 2y ago

This is the ultimate propaganda machine, no? We’re social creatures, chatbots already act as friends and advisors for many people. Seems like a pretty good vector for a social attack.

echelon 2y ago

The more the public has access to these tools, the more they'll develop useful scar tissue and muscle memory. We need people to be constantly exposed to bots so that they understand the new nature of digital information. When the automobile was developed, we had to train kids not to play in the streets. We didn't put kids or cars in bubbles. When photoshop came out, we developed a vernacular around edited images. "Photoshopped" became a verb. We'll be able to survive this too. The more exposure we have, the better.

Steen3S 2y ago
Please inform the EU about this.
ed 2y ago
Early traffic laws were actually created in response to child pedestrian deaths (7000 in 1925). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-06-10/how-cities-responded-to-traffic-deaths-100-years-ago https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-06-10/how-citie...
- echelon 2y ago
  Of course. The point I was making is that in the 19th century, roads were multifunctional spaces shared by merchants, horses, carts, wagons, playing children, performers, etc. The introduction of the automobile kicked all of these use cases off of the roads. While pedestrians have the right of way, the roads henceforth belonged to the "devil wagons". We also started to shift blame over to pedestrians for jaywalking. They no longer own the roads.
pennomi 2y ago
Right. You know how your grandmother falls for those “you have a virus” popups but you don’t? That’s because society adapts to the challenges of the day. I’m sure our kids and grandchildren will be more immune to these new types of scams.
imiric 2y ago
Your analogies don't quite align with this technology. We've had exposure to propaganda and disinformation for many decades, long before the internet became their primary medium, yet people don't learn to become immune to them. They're more effective now than they've ever been, and AI tools will only make them more so. Arguing that more exposure will somehow magically solve these problems is delusional at best, and dangerous at worst. There are other key differences from past technologies: - Most took years to decades to develop and gain mass adoption. This time is critical for society and governments to adapt to them. This adoption rate has been accelerating, but modern AI tech development is particularly fast. Governments can barely keep up to decide how this should be regulated, let alone people. When you consider that this tech is coming from companies that pioneered the "move fast and break things" mentality, in an industry drunk on greed and hubris, it should give everyone a cause for concern. - AI has the potential to disrupt many industries, not just one. But further than that, it raises deep existential questions about our humanity, the value of human work, how our economic and education systems are structured, etc. These are not problems we can solve overnight. Turning a blind eye to them and vouching for less regulations and more exposure is simply irresponsible.
- echelon 2y ago
  > vouching for less regulations and more exposure is simply irresponsible. We let people buy 6,000 pound vehicles capable of traveling 100+ mph. We let people buy sharp knives and guns. And heat their homes with flammable gas. And hike up dangerous tall mountains. I think the LLM is the least of society's worries and this pervasive thinking that everything needs to be wrapped up in bubble wrap is what is actually dangerous. Can a thought be dangerous? Should we prevent people from thinking or being exposed to certain things? That sounds far more Orwellian. If you want to criminalize illegal use of LLMs for fraud, then do that. But don't make the technology inaccessible and patronize people by telling them they're not smart enough to understand the danger. This is not a "fragile world" technology in its current form. When they're embodied, walking around, and killing people, then you can sound the alarm.
  - cbg0 2y ago
    Quite a lot of whataboutisms and straw men in your post, let's stick to LLMs, as that was the original topic.
Rastonbury 2y ago
Counter point the number of supposedly educated people falling into social media echo chambers parroting partisan views, sharing on ramps, recommending supplements. They obviously do not see the harm, if fact they feel superior, feeling the need to educate and lecture. The vector here was social media, the vector here is reliance on chatbots. I mildly trust the big player like Anthropic and even OpenAI, but imagine the talking head influencers/supplement peddlers making and promoting a un-woke chatbot. People are already relying on chatgpt to navigate medical conditions, personal/relationship issues
- echelon 2y ago
  I feel my response here [1] also applies to you. People are going to do these things anyway. We've had "yellow journalism" since the 1800s. It's a tale as old as time. What right do we have to go around policing other people's minds? When I grew up, the Internet was an escape from the puritanical censorship of the southern baptists I was surrounded with. It was a bastion of free information and idea exchange. If the prevailing ethos of the 2000s wasn't so anti-censorship, I wouldn't have gotten outside of my own filter bubble and found a way to explore other ideas. I would have been chased away as an undesirable member of the opposition and muted, censored, and banned. Thank god the algorithm didn't exist back then. The things we do to each other in today's internet are abhorrent. Both sides of the political spectrum attempt to constrain what the other side can do. We need to stop that. It's petty and increases polarization. And that's exactly what's happening with your suggestion - you're wanting to censor ideas and things you don't like that presumably this technology will be used to promote. Please stop thinking LLMs are an agent of the enemy to convert more people to their causes. The opposite is also true. And the impact won't be as extreme or dire as you make it out to be - heaven forbid people buy more vitamins. Oh, the humanity. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42499972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42499972
  - ben_w 2y ago
    If yellow journalism is bad, is not fully automated and personalised yellow journalism worse?
- 2y ago
ok654321 2y ago
[dead]