I have seen LLMs used to karma farm in order to create sellable accounts, but this account is 12yo which I find more disturbing because it means it used to be a real person’s and is now being used for something else.
How do you know it’s AI? If we’re all being exposed to its quirks, there will be subconscious feedback on our writing styles.
Posting highly formatted but substanceless empty fluff is not a “writing style”, it’s spam. A human is certainly capable of doing that if they set their mind to it, but occams razor strongly points to automation.
its likely AI bots, upvoting, commenting on AI bots.
People should award arguments on the merits. Why should where the argument came from influence evaluation of its present merit?
At many times I’ve been accused of
- spamming
- being AI
- being not real
- being too weird to be real
Etc. gonna need more than that. Nouveau McCarthyism needs to justify its continued existsnce otherwise GUH-BYE!
Why should the argument source matter? Because the whole point of social media is for people to communicate with other people. We want to share ideas with each other.
If all you can do is copy/paste, you’re a failure. If you were in school, you’d fail for plagiarism. You’re wasting electricity and wasting our time. Sorry.
Or, if all you want to do is share someone else’s idea, just put a URL to the place where they said it. Don’t pretend it’s your contribution when it’s not.
Why should the content of an argument ever be secondary to its source, especially if and when it satisfies and fully addresses whatever its burden to address?
I agree people should not try to conflate content they wrote from content that was generated.
My larger argument is they shouldnt (even have to) try to obfuscate who wrote what and the fact something was AI-generated shouldnt be this Deus-Ex-Machina that instantly relieves the “Human” from having to satisfy whatever burden of proof that rightly belongs to them to argue their counter-case where that occurs
Its way too convenient to argue thre opponent is AI and therefore they deserve to be prima facie disregarded and you, the human opponent win cuz you’re “human”. The same way people moving get to operate large moving truck UHauls cuz of the qualification “ur moving”
I just dont buy that a priori argument. If you, the Human, are so intelligible and coherent relativr to the AI I shouldnt need you to point out whos who and for you to additionally try to pull rank and identify as human to afford you some charity in apprehension of your arguemnents
If everything you say is true and thoroughlu comprehensible and inherently more satisfying of whatever argument at issue it should be little challenge if your beliefs are actually true and you succeed in making that intelligible
To paraphrase Gabor Matte: Why the
PAINFEAR?
The problem with automating social media posts is that they definitionally cannot have “merit”. The primary function of slop is not to “argue” but to “flood the zone with shit” and create a plausible consensus for whatever opinion the person running the LLMs wants. We saw this with paid humans before LLMs. It’s not new.
A human will never be able to win a debate against an LLM bot “on the merits” because their function is to waste your time. An LLM cannot stand on merit, cannot hold a position, and cannot construct an argument. The words that are output by an LLM have no connection to any inside mind or model of the world. The only way to win a debate with an LLM is the same way you win a debate with a troll: identify the hallmarks and refuse to engage.
Im just saying, the McCarthyist argument of “its AI/LLM” has to be dealt with at some point. If an LLM can argue equally or better than ahuman, focus should probably shift to the axtual argumeent as the nexus of discrediting its alleged AI source, rather than shrieking “ITS AI/LLM!” being sufficeint to shut down discussion
An LLM cannot “argue” full stop. If you find yourself in a debate with the text outputted by an LLM bot you have accomplished nothing besides wasting your own time (which is the entire point).
All the more reason it should be easier for a human to “win” the argument without needing to rely on AI-McCarthyism.
If not, your argument has a fatal flaw that can and will be discredited in similar light
The minute one feels the need to break the fourth wall and appeal to the debate version of some McCarthyist Deus Ex Machina authority to win their battle for them, all is lost
One cannot win an argument that does not exist
The problem is it exists even if you insist in doesnt in the alternative to losing it.
If there is a question and you cant or wont answer, that refusal to engage can result in adverse inference that is little different from you “losing”.
Not that that necessarily “matters”, its just this whole cheap point of “u AI, I win” is horseshit and I refuse to entertain it. If you are invested or have investment in the outcome of a discussion, you should out your best case forward. But the Neo-McCarthyishm bullshit needs to die. For my part, I refuse to entertain it, my arguments will always speak for themself and I dont particularly give a flying fuck if someone wants to glibly shriek “AI!”
It just so sad and embarassing for them to stoop so low cuz they losing to have to go that way. In my own way, I grieve for their loss of esteem they humanly generate for themself in that situation. That kind of generation is all too human
I’m starting to understand why you often find yourself accused of being a bot… 🙃
How many people use social media to talk to LLMs instead of people? I don’t think most people use social media under the impression comments they respond to and read are AI, but actual people.
Why should it be an excuse when one is losing an argument or failing to make a sufficient case for whatever their point is?
You may enjoy talking to chat bots, but I don’t have interest in that.
Lmfao, umbrage.
Umbrage is our word we need to take it back
