Technology

You know what Pac stands for? PAC. Program and Control. He’s Program and Control Man. The whole thing’s a metaphor. All he can do is consume. He’s pursued by demons that are probably just in his own head. And even if he does manage to escape by slipping out one side of the maze, what happens? He comes right back in the other side. People think it’s a happy game. It’s not a happy game. It’s a fucking nightmare world. And the worst thing is? It’s real and we live in it.

Using mainstream social media is literally agreeing to be constantly used as an advertisement optimization research subject

Fucking a. I. And their apologist script kiddies. worse than fucking Facebook in its disinformation

The University of Zurich’s ethics board—which can offer researchers advice but, according to the university, lacks the power to reject studies that fall short of its standards—told the researchers before they began posting that “the participants should be informed as much as possible,” according to the university statement I received. But the researchers seem to believe that doing so would have ruined the experiment. “To ethically test LLMs’ persuasive power in realistic scenarios, an unaware setting was necessary,” because it more realistically mimics how people would respond to unidentified bad actors in real-world settings, the researchers wrote in one of their Reddit comments.

This seems to be the kind of a situation where, if the researchers truly believe their study is necessary, they have to:

• accept that negative publicity will result
• accept that people may stop cooperating with them on this work
• accept that their reputation will suffer as a result
• ensure that they won't do anything illegal

After that, if they still feel their study is necesary, maybe they should run it and publish the results.

If then, some eager redditors start sending death threats, that's unfortunate. I would catalouge them, but not report them anywhere unless something actually happens.

As for the question of whether a tailor-made response considering someone's background can sway opinions better - that's been obvious through ages of diplomacy. (If you approach an influential person with a weighty proposal, it has always been worthwhile to know their background, think of several ways of how they might perceive the proposal, and advance your explanation in a way that relates better with their viewpoint.)

AI bots which take into consideration a person's background will - if implemented right - indeed be more powerful at swaying opinions.

As to whether secrecy was really needed - the article points to other studies which apparently managed to prove the persuasive capability of AI bots without deception and secrecy. So maybe it wasn't needed after all.

Wow you mean reddit is banning real users and replacing them with bots?????

Imagine what the people doing this professionally do, since they know they won't face the scrutiny of publication.

Another isolated case for the endlessly growing list of positive impacts of the GenAI with no accountability trend. A big shout-out to people promoting and fueling it, excited to see into what pit you lead us next.

This experiment is also nearly worthless because, as proved by the researchers, there's no guarantee the accounts you interact with on Reddit are actual humans. Upvotes are even easier for machines to use, and can be bought for cheap.

I was unaware that "Internet Ethics" was a thing that existed in this multiverse

ChangeMyView seems like the sort of topic where AI posts can actually be appropriate. If the goal is to hear arguments for an opposing point of view, the AI is contributing more than a human would if in fact the AI can generate more convincing arguments.