Shit. I could have told them to just block lemmygrad for like $100 😂🤣😂
I'll do it for $90!
Sold! $190 to watch to two of y'all fight Russian and Nazi sympathizers. I'm selling this on pay-per-view
Best I can do is an upvote.
Please tell me how to block a full instance
Just a reminder, LLMs are not designed to provide truth, but rather naturally sounding word generation.
We can certainly argue over what they're designed to do, and I definitely agree that's the goal of them. The reality though is that on some level it is impossible to separate assertions from the words that describe them. Language itself is designed to communicate ideas, you can't really create language without also communicating ideas, otherwise every sentence from an LLM would just look like
"Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like"
They will readily cite information that was fed to them. Sometimes it is on point, sometimes not. That starts to be a bit of an ethical discussion on whether it is okay for them to paraphrase information they were fed, and without citing it as a source of the info.
In a perfect world we should be able to expand a whole learning tree to trace back how the model pieced together each word and point of data it is citing, kind of like an advanced Wikipedia article. Then you could take the typical synopsis that the model provides and dig into it to judge for yourself if it's accurate or not. From a research standpoint I view info you collect from a language model as a step down from a secondary source and we should be able to easily see how it gets to that info.
Ah yes, American truths like "Iraq has WMDs and that's why invading them is the fair and just thing to do," "abortion is bad for human rights," "the US isn't collecting all of your internet traffic because that would be a violation of privacy," and "this CIA-funded coup of a democratically-elected government will definitely help spread democracy around the world."
This researcher has built a pro-America AI disinformation machine for $400. I expect that, like most American media, it will start citing "independent think tanks" like Atlantic Council (which, coincidentally, is staffed mostly by ex-US intelligence and receives funding from US intelligence agencies) and use reports gathered by "independent sources" such as the US 4th PsyOps Airborne (which, per their recent recruiting videos, admits to orchestrating large-scale protests including Euromaidan, Tiananmen Square, and others).
Have you seen any tweet this bot generated that would contain misinformation? Because I haven't.
What is the context for Iraq WMDs? I haven't seen it anywhere in the article?
Is anyone arguing that, at the time of the Iraq War, it wasn't considered a "truth" in America that Iraq was developing WMDs and that anything to the contrary was considered disinformation?
So is the bot not pointing out obvious lies with links to factual data or what is your point? Can you link me to an example of bot using shaky arguments?
And the WMD claims stood on shaky legs from very beginning, many countries like Germany opposed use of force in Iraq. Perhaps we'd benefit from bot correcting false narratives in real time had this technology been available at the time.
The bot doesn't know what's "real" or not though - it's a large language model, not a model of the real world. All it knows is what it's been told in its training data.
For some reason the 5000+ chemical weapons removed from Iraq never seem to count as WMDs.
That's because they aren't.
Chemical weapons cause severe agony, but tend to kill a limited number of people.
According to the UN:
Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) constitute a class of weaponry with the potential to:
Produce in a single moment an enormous destructive effect capable to kill millions of civilians, jeopardize the natural environment, and fundamentally alter the lives of future generations through their catastrophic effects;
Cause death or serious injury of people through toxic or poisonous chemicals;
Disseminate disease-causing organisms or toxins to harm or kill humans, animals or plants;
Deliver nuclear explosive devices, chemical, biological or toxin agents to use them for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.
So, they were WMDs
Iraq had those same stores of chemical weapons since the 1980s and was in the slow and arduous process of dismantling them (it had dismantled something like 90-95% of its WMDs by 2003 and was not stockpiling replacements). Given the lack of new production, many of the chemical weapons supposedly in Iraq's stockpile would have turned harmless due to the short shelf life of chemical weapons.
By and large, people used this imagined idea that Iraq was still developing nuclear weapons as the justification for the invasion. American media ran stories about how aluminum tubes "used for uranium enrichment" were being imported by Iraq. American media brought out Iraqi defectors of questionable credibility who talked about Iraq's burgeoning nuclear capability. American intelligence claimed that Iraq was actively seeking nuclear weapons development. Of course, all of these claims were entirely false.
By this definition, 9/11 proves that a jumbo jet is a WMD. I don't know if I can call a jumbo jet a WMD.
What makes you say that this new disinformation machine is pro-America?
After WWII in Germany, the cool young people knew you couldn't trust anyone over 30.
Nowadays, cool people need to understand that you can't trust anything bland and sanitized-sounding on the internet. For the rest of our lives, your personhood is on trial with everything you say.
It could tear society apart before we even know it's happening.
This was why I was so furious about Elon Mask's blue checkmark debacle. He had a chance to prove that a gigantic part of the internet was a) human and b) non-duplicate. I was really shocked by how badly an apparently smart person fucked it up. Not so smart, it turns out.
EM loses the ability to infuriate you when you understand him as a narcissist.
Honestly, if you look at it in a vacuum, this looks pretty similar to what the other side is doing.
It's a bot that draws from its own side's narratives and pushes that line.
Take away Russia from the picture and think about how often our media pushes a spin on other subjects that isn't exactly the truth.
Doesn't look so much like "social media propaganda bots versus AI-driven bots arguing back" as much as propaganda bots on both sides spewing whatever their masters want us to see.
You can't take away Russia from the picture, because the fact that the bots are arguing against misinformation while using the truth is salient.
Great, now take the same freedom fighter bots and tell them to argue IP policy on social media online. We can hear all about the right minded ways to think about intellectual property and how all the comments around here are misinformation.
It's like people lose their minds when you throw an enemy into the sentence. I don't think these people crafting propaganda bots are heroes, even if they are on "my" team. Go down this road, and you can throw away forums like Lemmy, it'll just be bots arguing with bots.
Not to mention, it’s very probable there not on the side of truth, but rather more propaganda.
So is it against Russian disinformation, or is does it make anti Russia disinformation? I'd hope the former, it's easy enough to refute Russia with correct information.
I know it’s taboo but hear me out - you could read the article and find out
Per the article, it’s the latter.
The tweets, the articles, and even the journalists and news sites were crafted entirely by artificial intelligence algorithms, according to the person behind the project, who goes by the name Nea Paw and says it is designed to highlight the danger of mass-produced AI disinformation.
OpenAI is so concerned that AI will do x and y bad thing but still pour all these resources into developing it further.
There are other endeavors where a great deal of the effort is put into making it safe. Space travel for example.
I wish that was the case for AI development. AI safety is a notoriously underfunded, understaffed and still overall neglected field.
That concern is feigned, for PR.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Russian criticism of the US is far from unusual, but CounterCloud’s material pushing back was: The tweets, the articles, and even the journalists and news sites were crafted entirely by artificial intelligence algorithms, according to the person behind the project, who goes by the name Nea Paw and says it is designed to highlight the danger of mass-produced AI disinformation.
Mitigations are possible, such as educating users to be watchful for manipulative AI-generated content, making generative AI systems try to block misuse, or equipping browsers with AI-detection tools.
In recent years, disinformation researchers have warned that AI language models could be used to craft highly personalized propaganda campaigns, and to power social media accounts that interact with users in sophisticated ways.
Renee DiResta, technical research manager for the Stanford Internet Observatory, which tracks information campaigns, says the articles and journalist profiles generated as part of the CounterCloud project are fairly convincing.
“In addition to government actors, social media management agencies and mercenaries who offer influence operations services will no doubt pick up these tools and incorporate them into their workflows,” DiResta says.
The CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, said in a Tweet last month that he is concerned that his company’s artificial intelligence could be used to create tailored, automated disinformation on a massive scale.
The original article contains 806 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
So this is why Elon is suddenly more upset than usual about bots
The Federal Election Commission has said it may limit the use of deepfakes in political ads.
Any use of deepfakes should serve as immediate disqualification/termination for any political candidate, and any donations immediately reversed.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
