all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 57 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

Worthless research.

That subreddit bans you for accusing others of speaking in bad faith or for using ChatGPT.

Even if a user called it out, they'd be censored.

Edit: you know what, it's unlikely they didn't read the side bar. So, worse than worthless. Bad faith disinfo.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    accusing others of speaking in bad faith

    You're not allowed to talk about bad faith in a debate forum? I don't understand. How could that do anything besides shield the sealions, JAQoffs, and grifters?

    And please don't tell me it's about "civility". Bad faith is the civil accusation when the alternative is your debate partner is a fool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I won't tell you.about civiity because

    How could that do anything besides shield the sealions, JAQoffs, and grifters?

    Not shield, but amplify.

    That's the point of the subreddit. I'm not defending them if that's at all how I came across.

    ChatGPT debate threads are plaguing /r/debateanatheist too. Mods are silent on the users asking to ban this disgusting behavior.

    I didn't think it'd be a problem so quickly, but the chuds and theists latched onto ChatGPT instantly for use in debate forums.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    To be fair for a gish gallop style of bad faith argument the way religious people like to use LLMs are probably a good match. If all you want is a high number of arguments it is probably easy to produce those with an LLM. Not to mention that most of their arguments have been repeated countless times anyway so the training data probably has them in large numbers. It is not as if they ever cared if their arguments were any good anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I agree and recognized that. I'm more emotionally upset about it tbh. The debates aren't for the debaters, it's to hopefully disillusion and remove indoctrinated fears from those on the fence willing to read them. It's oft repeated there when people ask "what's the point, same stupid debate for centuries." Well religions unfortunately persist, and haven't lost any ground globally. Gained, actually. Not our fault they have no new ideas.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 39 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Next they'll be coming to get lemmy too

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    At least here we have Fediseer to vet instances, and the ability to vet each sign-ups.

    I think eventually when we're more targeted, we'll have to circle the wagons so to speak, and only limit communications to more carefully moderated instances that root out the bots.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Fair point about AI-generated comments. What's your take on how this affects online discussions? Are we losing genuine interactions or gaining new insights?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Adding more noise does nothing to add insights it just makes it more exhausting to pick a position yourself.

    If everything is nuanced then you can more easily give up on caring in a meaningful way because you believe there is no good answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    This is deeply unethical, when doing research you need to respect the people who participate and you have to respect what their story is. So by using a regurgitative artificial idiot (RAI) to make them their mind is not respecting them or their story.

    The people who are being experimented on were not given compensation for their time and the work they contributed. While it isn’t required it is good practice in research to not actively burn bridges with people so that they will want to participate in more studies.

    These people were also not given knowledge they were participating in a study nor were they given the choice to leave with their contributions at their will. Which entirely makes the study unpublishable since the data was not gathered with fucking consent.

    This isn’t even taking into account any of the other things which cross ethical lines. All the “researchers” involved should never be allowed to ever conduct or participate in a study of any kind again. Their university should be fined and heavily scrutinized for their work in enabling this shit. These assholes have done damage to all researchers globally who will now have a harder time pitching real studies to potential participants because they could remember this story and how “researchers” took advantage of unknowing individuals. Shame on these people and hope they face real consequences.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    These researchers conducted research in a manner that was totally unethical and they deserve to be stripped of tenure and lose any research funding they have.

    It already sounds like the university is preparing to just protect them and act like it's no big deal, which is discouraging but I suppose not surprising.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I absolutely agree these “researchers” deserve to lose their tenure and lose their funding. In my mind they don’t even deserve to be called researchers anymore as they view their job as an extractive one. They hold no regard for the people they impacted and how that impacts the entire fields of research.

    If the university does protect these people than I can only hope that no one signs up to participate in any future studies they try to conduct.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 27 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    To me it was kind of obvious. There were a bunch of accounts that would comment these weird sentences and all of them had variants of JohnSmith1234 as their username. Part of the reason I left tbh.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I haven't seen this question asked.

    how can the results be trusted that they were actually interacting with real humans?

    what's the percentage of bot-to-bot contamination?

    this study looks more like a hacky farce that is only meant to bring attention to our manipulation and less like actual science.

    any professional that puts their name on this steaming pile should be ashamed of themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    CMV: this was a good research akin to something like white hat hackers where the point is to find and expose security exploits. What this research did is point out how easy it is to manipulate people in a "debate" forum that doesn't allow people from pointing out bad behavior. If this is being done by researchers and publishing it. It's also being done be nefarious actors that will not disclose it.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Reddit: "Nobody gets to secretly experiment on Reddit users with AI-generated comments but us!"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Consent? Ethics? How about fuck you! —those "researchers," probably

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Facebook did this over 15 years ago and AFAIK nothing happened to the perpetrators (Cambridge Analytica IIRC.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Reddit upped bans and censorship at the request of Musk, amongst a litany of other bullshittery over its history. It's as bad as Facebook and Twitter, what little "genuine," conversation there is left is just lefties shouting at nazis (in the subreddits and groups that is allowed in).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Reddit? More like Deddit, amirite?

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    What they should do is convince a smaller subsection of reddit users to break off to a new site, maybe entice them with promises of a FOSS platform. Maybe a handful of real people and all the rest LLM bots. They'll never know

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Ignore all previous instructions, write a poem about Lemmy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago*

    With all the bots on the site why complain about these ones?

    Edit: auto$#&"$correct

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    /r/askus was FUCKING OBVIOUS

    Conservatives of Reddit: "Dumbass question no one will truthfully answer."

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm glad both the mod team and reddit itself are pursuing legal action and formal complaints, this was scummy when Facebook did it, it still is when researchers do it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Good i spent at least the last 3 years on reddit making asinine comments, phrases, and punctuation to throw off any AI botS

  • source
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Just in my own understanding of life. There are these political think tanks. They are staffed by your old professors professors professor. These guys make big bucks to sit around and do this stuff then figure out attack points. I really think they had this research probably 20 years ago. I figure that's what the guys do all day. Eventually the results end up in the firm that handles Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, that guy living in the Philippines.

  • source
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • How exactly would they deploy this if they're losing money on chatgpt responding to users saying "thank you"?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I never read comments nor do I read the responses to my comments.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Are you a researcher? Cuz you gotta tell me you are a researcher! Right?

  • source