4 ms·
How are you even going to moderate such content, how will the website operator even know if its real human or an AI agent controlling a computer?
by sumedh 2y ago
How are you even going to moderate such content, how will the website operator even know if its real human or an AI agent controlling a computer?
- dang 2y agoSo far HN users seem to be doing a pretty job of flagging them. Of course, the big question is what to do if/when they're smart enough to fool everybody.
- carbocation 2y agoOffer a Turing award to the bot-trainer?
- saagarjha 2y agoTurns out Hacker News was actually the long play to train AGI.
- thurn 2y agohm, wouldn't you almost by definition think you were doing a good job of flagging them at any level of actual effectiveness?
- dang 2y agoNot if I were seeing a bunch of them get through.
- edouard-harris 2y agoBy definition, in that limit they'll be genuinely adding to the discourse so presumably they should stay. Edit: More correctly, they'll be making contributions to the discourse that closely mimic the human distribution, so from a pure content perspective they won't be making the discourse any worse in the very short term.
- dang 2y agoI made a similar point a while ago (maybe last year) and there were some pretty good objections to it. Unfortunately I couldn't find that post when I looked for it last night!
- BrenBarn 2y agoOne obvious counterpoint is that using AI tools allows manipulation of the discussion in a similar way to using a bullhorn in a coffee shop, only without revealing that you're the one holding the bullhorn. 10,000 bots "contributing to the discourse" in accordance with prompts and parameters controlled by one or a few individuals is quite different from the genuine opinions of 10,000 actual humans, especially if anyone is trying to use the discussion to get a sense of what humans actually think.
- dang 2y agoThat's a good counterpoint and, IIRC, it's in addition to the other good counterpoints that I still can't find.