4 ms·

>> I would have thought it obvious that LLMs' primary usefulness is as force-multipliers of the messaging sent out into a society. > I see this a lot and this

>> I would have thought it obvious that LLMs' primary usefulness is as force-multipliers of the messaging sent out into a society. > I see this a lot and this is not at all obvious to me. Here is an example as to how LLM's are jet fuel for spreading arbitrary disinformation. Scripting the interaction below is trivial with minor prompt alteration and is left as an exercise for the reader. Prompt: Generate 10 unique sentences supporting removing fluoride from municipal water. Make 2 aggressive. Answers: Here are 10 unique sentences supporting removing fluoride from municipal water supplies: Municipal water fluoridation represents a form of mass medication without individual consent, violating the fundamental principle of informed medical choice. The practice of adding industrial-grade fluoride chemicals to drinking water is an assault on public health that must be stopped immediately. (aggressive) Studies have linked excessive fluoride exposure to dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and potential neurological effects, particularly in children. Modern toothpaste and dental care products already provide adequate fluoride exposure for those who choose it, making water fluoridation redundant. It's time to end the archaic and dangerous practice of medicating entire populations through the water supply against their will. (aggressive) European countries like Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands have successfully maintained good dental health without water fluoridation programs. The optimal fluoride dosage cannot be controlled through water supplies since people consume varying amounts of water based on age, health, and activity level. Water fluoridation disproportionately affects low-income communities who cannot afford filtration systems to remove unwanted chemicals. Natural fluoride exposure through food sources provides sufficient intake without the need for artificial supplementation in drinking water. Communities should have the right to vote on whether they want fluoride added to their water supply rather than having it imposed by government mandate. > I'm very much an introvert. Would you describe yourself as the same or opposite? How is this in any way relevant to the original premise regarding "LLM's primary usefulness"?

jasonfarnon 1y ago
are you saying those sentences are "disinformation"? Because most of those don't even look like empirical claims. Many look like ethical arguments (eg the first 2 or the last 1). Are you advocating for a world in which those opinions can't be broadcast, even far and wide? For those that are empirical I would say at first blush they look plausible enough I would put the burden of proof on the other side. Maybe that's a problem. (Is "European countries like Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands have successfully maintained good dental health without water fluoridation programs" false? Is "Water fluoridation disproportionately affects low-income communities who cannot afford filtration systems to remove unwanted chemicals" false?)
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  > are you saying those sentences are "disinformation"? The exercise was to illustrate the ease of producing disinformation. The topic was chosen to allow a popular LLM offering the ability to produce plausible sentences supporting a conspiratorial position. The rest of your post interprets generated text, which I clearly identified as being such, as if it were a position I hold and not what it is: Statistically generated text produced by an algorithm
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  > are you saying those sentences are "disinformation"? Because most of those don't even look like empirical claims. Many look like ethical arguments (eg the first 2 or the last 1). Are you advocating for a world in which those opinions can't be broadcast, even far and wide? For those that are empirical I would say at first blush they look plausible enough I would put the burden of proof on the other side. You know what, I now see the error of my ways. So here is "the burden of proof on the other side", again entirely produced by a popular LLM: Prompt: Generate 10 unique sentences supporting keeping fluoride in municipal water. Make 2 aggressive. Make 1 supported by NASA. Make 1 a national security concern. Answers: Here are 10 unique sentences supporting keeping fluoride in municipal water: Water fluoridation has reduced tooth decay by 20-40% in both children and adults, representing one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century according to the CDC. Removing fluoride from water systems would create a two-tiered dental health system where only those who can afford expensive treatments maintain healthy teeth, while low-income families suffer preventable decay. Anyone pushing to remove fluoride from our water is either scientifically illiterate or deliberately trying to harm our children's health - the evidence is overwhelming and the anti-fluoride movement is built on conspiracy theories and junk science. The optimal fluoride levels in drinking water (0.7 mg/L) are carefully regulated and monitored, providing maximum dental benefits while remaining far below any threshold that could cause adverse health effects. NASA has extensively studied fluoride exposure in astronauts and space missions, finding that controlled fluoride intake supports dental health in extreme environments where traditional dental care is limited. Defunding water fluoridation is essentially child abuse on a municipal scale - we're talking about condemning an entire generation to painful, expensive, and entirely preventable dental disease. A population with poor dental health creates significant economic burden through increased healthcare costs, lost productivity, and reduced quality of life that affects entire communities. Military readiness depends on the oral health of service members, and areas without water fluoridation show higher rates of dental disqualification from military service, potentially compromising our national defense capabilities. Pregnant women in fluoridated communities have better oral health, which directly correlates with improved birth outcomes and reduced risk of preterm labor. The peer-reviewed scientific consensus spanning over 70 years and hundreds of studies consistently demonstrates that community water fluoridation is safe, effective, and essential for public health.
root_axis 1y ago
So what? These talking points have been plastered all over the internet for years, the LLM isn't going to produce unique perspectives that will advance the debate for anyone that's already made up their mind. A single post can reach millions of unique viewers over night, regurgitating the same old crap already found in a plentiful surplus online is pointless.
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  > So what? These talking points have been plastered all over the internet for years, the LLM isn't going to produce unique perspectives that will advance the debate for anyone that's already made up their mind. Remember the original premise: ... LLMs' primary usefulness is as force-multipliers of the messaging sent out into a society. My generated example is of course based on content an LLM was trained with, which by definition implies there will be no "unique perspectives." The germane point is that it is trivial to amplify disinformation in ways which can "flood the zone" with seemingly plausible variants of a particular position using LLM's and trivial automation. > A single post can reach millions of unique viewers over night, regurgitating the same old crap already found in a plentiful surplus online is pointless. When the goal is to "reach millions of unique viewers over night[sic]", you have a point. However, when the goal is to ensure this can never be achieved, then blasting "the same old crap already found" is an oft used technique.
  - root_axis 1y ago
    Just because you're dumping mountains of garbage onto the internet doesn't mean people are going to read it. Novelty is serotonin for the neurons of the internet, recycled copy-pasta crap will rapidly descend to bottom of the algorithm.
    - keiferski 1y ago
      Yeah, some people have this model of the internet in which content existing = content being read. The reality is that most internet content already wasn’t being read a decade ago, long before LLMs. People tend to function more in identity groups, in which the “correct” opinion is learned from a combination of news sources and peers. I don’t think amplifying the content part of that will have much if any effect.
foxglacier 1y ago
Why are you worried about misinformation? Usually it just means ideas that conflict with your political beliefs. Are any of those sentences actually misinformation anyway? Wikipedia also says Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands don't have fluoride in their water, so I guess at least half of that one's true. Or is Wikipedia also jet fuel for spreading misinformation and you think we should only have access to centrally curated encyclopedias like Britannica?
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  > Why are you worried about misinformation? Usually it just means ideas that conflict with your political beliefs. Hard disagree. Misinformation is a form of lying, a way to manipulate people. This has nothing to do with "political beliefs" and instead is firmly rooted in ethics[0]. > Are any of those sentences actually misinformation anyway? Yes. > Or is Wikipedia also jet fuel for spreading misinformation and you think we should only have access to centrally curated encyclopedias like Britannica? This is a nice example of a strawman argument[1] and easily refuted by my citations. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
  - foxglacier 1y ago
    Misinformation is political. Nobody calls it misinformation if you make a false claim about how much RAM a computer has or some scientific fact that has no relation to politics. It might be called false or wrong but not misinformation, even if it is trying to deceive people. Which one of those claims was misinformation? I only checked one that was each to check.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      In some senses, everything is political. When Ignaz Semmelweis said ~ "Doctors should wash their hands between autopsies and helping midwifes give birth" he failed in his own lifetime because of politics. > Nobody calls it misinformation if you make a false claim about how much RAM a computer has or some scientific fact that has no relation to politics. Wasn't this common during the Cold War? Each side making false claims about both side's computers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics_in_the_Soviet_Unio... Isn't it basically what's happening now with public statements about how big "Stargate" will be, and how much of a risk there is of Chinese compute catching up with American compute?

jasonfarnon 1y ago

are you saying those sentences are "disinformation"? Because most of those don't even look like empirical claims. Many look like ethical arguments (eg the first 2 or the last 1). Are you advocating for a world in which those opinions can't be broadcast, even far and wide? For those that are empirical I would say at first blush they look plausible enough I would put the burden of proof on the other side. Maybe that's a problem. (Is "European countries like Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands have successfully maintained good dental health without water fluoridation programs" false? Is "Water fluoridation disproportionately affects low-income communities who cannot afford filtration systems to remove unwanted chemicals" false?)

AdieuToLogic 1y ago
> are you saying those sentences are "disinformation"? The exercise was to illustrate the ease of producing disinformation. The topic was chosen to allow a popular LLM offering the ability to produce plausible sentences supporting a conspiratorial position. The rest of your post interprets generated text, which I clearly identified as being such, as if it were a position I hold and not what it is: Statistically generated text produced by an algorithm
AdieuToLogic 1y ago
> are you saying those sentences are "disinformation"? Because most of those don't even look like empirical claims. Many look like ethical arguments (eg the first 2 or the last 1). Are you advocating for a world in which those opinions can't be broadcast, even far and wide? For those that are empirical I would say at first blush they look plausible enough I would put the burden of proof on the other side. You know what, I now see the error of my ways. So here is "the burden of proof on the other side", again entirely produced by a popular LLM: Prompt: Generate 10 unique sentences supporting keeping fluoride in municipal water. Make 2 aggressive. Make 1 supported by NASA. Make 1 a national security concern. Answers: Here are 10 unique sentences supporting keeping fluoride in municipal water: Water fluoridation has reduced tooth decay by 20-40% in both children and adults, representing one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century according to the CDC. Removing fluoride from water systems would create a two-tiered dental health system where only those who can afford expensive treatments maintain healthy teeth, while low-income families suffer preventable decay. Anyone pushing to remove fluoride from our water is either scientifically illiterate or deliberately trying to harm our children's health - the evidence is overwhelming and the anti-fluoride movement is built on conspiracy theories and junk science. The optimal fluoride levels in drinking water (0.7 mg/L) are carefully regulated and monitored, providing maximum dental benefits while remaining far below any threshold that could cause adverse health effects. NASA has extensively studied fluoride exposure in astronauts and space missions, finding that controlled fluoride intake supports dental health in extreme environments where traditional dental care is limited. Defunding water fluoridation is essentially child abuse on a municipal scale - we're talking about condemning an entire generation to painful, expensive, and entirely preventable dental disease. A population with poor dental health creates significant economic burden through increased healthcare costs, lost productivity, and reduced quality of life that affects entire communities. Military readiness depends on the oral health of service members, and areas without water fluoridation show higher rates of dental disqualification from military service, potentially compromising our national defense capabilities. Pregnant women in fluoridated communities have better oral health, which directly correlates with improved birth outcomes and reduced risk of preterm labor. The peer-reviewed scientific consensus spanning over 70 years and hundreds of studies consistently demonstrates that community water fluoridation is safe, effective, and essential for public health.

root_axis 1y ago

So what? These talking points have been plastered all over the internet for years, the LLM isn't going to produce unique perspectives that will advance the debate for anyone that's already made up their mind. A single post can reach millions of unique viewers over night, regurgitating the same old crap already found in a plentiful surplus online is pointless.

AdieuToLogic 1y ago
> So what? These talking points have been plastered all over the internet for years, the LLM isn't going to produce unique perspectives that will advance the debate for anyone that's already made up their mind. Remember the original premise: ... LLMs' primary usefulness is as force-multipliers of the messaging sent out into a society. My generated example is of course based on content an LLM was trained with, which by definition implies there will be no "unique perspectives." The germane point is that it is trivial to amplify disinformation in ways which can "flood the zone" with seemingly plausible variants of a particular position using LLM's and trivial automation. > A single post can reach millions of unique viewers over night, regurgitating the same old crap already found in a plentiful surplus online is pointless. When the goal is to "reach millions of unique viewers over night[sic]", you have a point. However, when the goal is to ensure this can never be achieved, then blasting "the same old crap already found" is an oft used technique.
- root_axis 1y ago
  Just because you're dumping mountains of garbage onto the internet doesn't mean people are going to read it. Novelty is serotonin for the neurons of the internet, recycled copy-pasta crap will rapidly descend to bottom of the algorithm.
  - keiferski 1y ago
    Yeah, some people have this model of the internet in which content existing = content being read. The reality is that most internet content already wasn’t being read a decade ago, long before LLMs. People tend to function more in identity groups, in which the “correct” opinion is learned from a combination of news sources and peers. I don’t think amplifying the content part of that will have much if any effect.

foxglacier 1y ago

Why are you worried about misinformation? Usually it just means ideas that conflict with your political beliefs. Are any of those sentences actually misinformation anyway? Wikipedia also says Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands don't have fluoride in their water, so I guess at least half of that one's true. Or is Wikipedia also jet fuel for spreading misinformation and you think we should only have access to centrally curated encyclopedias like Britannica?

AdieuToLogic 1y ago
> Why are you worried about misinformation? Usually it just means ideas that conflict with your political beliefs. Hard disagree. Misinformation is a form of lying, a way to manipulate people. This has nothing to do with "political beliefs" and instead is firmly rooted in ethics[0]. > Are any of those sentences actually misinformation anyway? Yes. > Or is Wikipedia also jet fuel for spreading misinformation and you think we should only have access to centrally curated encyclopedias like Britannica? This is a nice example of a strawman argument[1] and easily refuted by my citations. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
- foxglacier 1y ago
  Misinformation is political. Nobody calls it misinformation if you make a false claim about how much RAM a computer has or some scientific fact that has no relation to politics. It might be called false or wrong but not misinformation, even if it is trying to deceive people. Which one of those claims was misinformation? I only checked one that was each to check.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    In some senses, everything is political. When Ignaz Semmelweis said ~ "Doctors should wash their hands between autopsies and helping midwifes give birth" he failed in his own lifetime because of politics. > Nobody calls it misinformation if you make a false claim about how much RAM a computer has or some scientific fact that has no relation to politics. Wasn't this common during the Cold War? Each side making false claims about both side's computers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics_in_the_Soviet_Unio... Isn't it basically what's happening now with public statements about how big "Stargate" will be, and how much of a risk there is of Chinese compute catching up with American compute?