Spam, scams, propaganda, and astroturfing are easily the largest beneficiaries of LLM automation, so far. LLMs are exactly the 100x rocket-boots their boosters are promising for other areas (without such results outside a few tiny, but sometimes important, niches, so far) when what you're doing is producing throw-away content at enormous scale and have a high tolerance for mistakes, as long as the volume is high.
Robocalls. Almost all that I receive are AI's. It's aggrevating because I'd have enjoyed talking to a person in India or wherever but I get the same AI's which filter or argue with me.
I just bought Robokiller. I habe it set to contacts cuz the AI's were calling me all day.
It seems unfair to call out LLMs for "spam, scams, propaganda, and astroturfing." These problems are largely the result of platform optimization for engagement and SEO competition for attention. This isn't unique to models; even we, humans, when operating without feedback, generate mostly slop. Curation is performed by the environment and the passage of time, which reveals consequences. LLMs taken in isolation from their environment are just as sloppy as brains in a similar situation.
Therefore, the correct attitude to take regarding LLMs is to create ways for them to receive useful feedback on their outputs. When using a coding agent, have the agent work against tests. Scaffold constraints and feedback around it. AlphaZero, for example, had abundant environmental feedback and achieved amazing (superhuman) results. Other Alpha models (for math, coding, etc.) that operated within validation loops reached olympic levels in specific types of problem-solving. The limitation of LLMs is actually a limitation of their incomplete coupling with the external world.
In fact you don't even need a super intelligent agent to make progress, it is sufficient to have copying and competition, evolution shows it can create all life, including us and our culture and technology without a very smart learning algorithm. Instead what it has is plenty of feedback. Intelligence is not in the brain or the LLM, it is in the ecosystem, the society of agents, and the world. Intelligence is the result of having to pay the cost of our execution to continue to exist, a strategy to balance the cost of life.
What I mean by feedback is exploration, when you execute novel actions or actions in novel environment configurations, and observe the outcomes. And adjust, and iterate. So the feedback becomes part of the model, and the model part of the action-feedback process. They co-create each other.
> It seems unfair to call out LLMs for "spam, scams, propaganda, and astroturfing." These problems are largely the result of platform optimization for engagement and SEO competition for attention.
They didn't create those markets, but they're the markets for which LLMs enhance productivity and capability the best right now, because they're the ones that need the least supervision of input to and output from the LLMs, and they happen to be otherwise well-suited to the kind of work it is, besides.
> This isn't unique to models; even we, humans, when operating without feedback, generate mostly slop.
I don't understand the relevance of this.
> Curation is performed by the environment and the passage of time, which reveals consequences.
It'd say it's revealed by human judgement and eroded by chance, but either way, I still don't get the relevance.
> LLMs taken in isolation from their environment are just as sloppy as brains in a similar situation.
Sure? And clouds are often fluffy. Water is often wet. Relevance?
The rest of this is a description of how we can make LLMs work better, which amounts to more work than required to make LLMs pay off enormously for the purposes I called out, so... are we even in disagreement? I don't disagree that perhaps this will change, and explicitly bound my original claim ("so far") for that reason.
... are you actually demonstrating my point, on purpose, by responding with LLM slop?
LLMs can generate slop if used without good feedback or trying to minimize human contribution. But the same LLMs can filter out the dark patterns. They can use search and compare against dozens or hundreds of web pages, which is like the deep research mode outputs. These reports can still contain mistakes, but we can iterate - generate multiple deep reports from different models with different web search tools, and then do comparative analysis once more. There is no reason we should consume raw web full of "spam, scams, propaganda, and astroturfing" today.
For a good while I joked that I could easily write a bot that makes more interesting conversation than you. The human slop will drown in AI slop. Looks like we wil need to make more of an effort when publishing if not develop our own personality.
> It seems unfair to call out LLMs for "spam, scams, propaganda, and astroturfing."
You should hear HN talk about crypto. If the knife were invented today they'd have a field day calling it the most evil plaything of bandits, etc. Nothing about human nature, of course.
We're on track to be a much-richer Russia. Which is a lot better than being like Russia, and also as poor as Russia. But it's a lot worse than being rich and also not like Russia.
I expect most of the pain will be from lost potential growth rather than an actual decline in real terms, and that it'll take a while for most people to realize how stagnant we've become—because line will continue to Go Up thanks to an inflation-based debt reduction strategy, plus the US is such a giant player in the global economy that our slowing way down will also slow the global economy for quite a while, until it adjusts, so we'll still seem to be doing relatively OK for potentially another decade or more.
Of course we could also derail into something even worse than Russia. Or capital flight might hit us harder and faster than I think it will (anyone who can't see a way to, or can't stomach, getting on the good side of our rulers, will want to get out so they don't lose all their shit, including possibly their lives in extreme cases)
Voter behavior and motivation (and knowledge of the issues, and of basic facts about their own government...) is well-studied and has been for decades. Political scientists studied it really heavily for quite a while because early results were fucking alarming (and proved to be accurate, and also not just a temporary aberration) if you're starting from a firm belief in liberal democracy and a broad franchise.
Voters, to a great extent, aren't motivated by what one might either expect or hope, nor 1/10th as well informed about the operation of their own government or the issues at stake as one might hope. It's a shit-show, so much so that it's practically miraculous that voting produces functioning governments ever, at all, and the whole thing's terribly fragile (after convincing themselves the data weren't wrong, the next step was a few decades of trying to figure out some mechanism by which this whole thing wasn't as worrisome as it seemed, which effort turned out to be based mostly on "copium", to use a modern term, and was eventually regarded as having more-or-less failed)
I understand that. That is not the point though. Although, if you believe in that theory, you should reject democracy and aim for some form of aristocracy or monarchy. I don't believe that many political scientists [sic] today publish and advocate disenfranchisement, perhaps because that's not politically correct, but all that is beside the point.
My point specifically is if people are voting for someone, more often than not (at least in the US, perhaps less so elsewhere where they elect the parliament and the parliament by proxy elects the executive which induces some machinations), want that person for whatever reason and consider that person aligned with their interests even if some second-order effects are not so. They did not get "fooled" and bait-and-switched even if they later feel the performance was not great. Proof for that is you are not going to find that many who say they would have switched their votes even after the fact. Those political scientists and the GP have the arrogance and audacity to project their own interests on every single person and conclude they did not vote appropriately.
> Although, if you believe in that theory, you should reject democracy and aim for some form of aristocracy or monarchy.
Not necessarily! It means that the model of the typical voter's behavior (and of the reasons why elections go the ways they do) isn't what many conceive it to be (or hope it may be), and that democracy's weaknesses, vulnerabilities, strengths, and capabilities may in-fact be at least somewhat different from what one operating from that idealized (and apparently very wrong) model of voter behavior would expect. It could still be the best of a bad lot.
> They did not get "fooled" and bait-and-switched even if they later feel the performance was not great.
They are extremely often operating from incorrect information, either regarding facts about the state of the world, or about probable outcomes of various policies. This can include things that directly affect them (or don't) in ways that one would expect them to notice—one fun form of study that's been run a few times is to ask a population whether a tax increase or decrease that in-fact affected only a tiny sliver of the population but was the subject of substantial propagandizing and/or publicity affected them personally (this is about as direct as it gets!) and the typical result is pretty much exactly what your most-pessimistic guess would be.
Supposing that people very-often hold a bunch of incorrect beliefs about how policies affect them but are also good at voting for their own interests when it comes time to mark the ballot is probably somewhere in the category of wishful thinking—and that's assuming motivations and intentions focused on policies and their outcomes in the first place. There's less-strong but still-quite-strong evidence that, as the kids say, "vibes" are a huge factor in the outcomes of elections, even when those "vibes" come from things that even the extremely politically-ignorant ought to know have nothing much to do with, say, who the President is, like a rash of shark attacks for example. This, of course, doesn't mean that this "vibes-from-irrelevant-stuff" voting makes the difference for anywhere near as many people as incorrect information does (it almost certainly doesn't) but that it has an outsize effect on the true-swing (not self-reported swing, that's mostly bullshit) vote, which tends to consist almost entirely of so-called "low-information voters", with the result that it may not have any effect at all on most voters but elections still turn on it (one of a billion reasons FPTP voting sucks is that it amplifies the power of this effect).
I do think, separately, there are cases of rational trade-offs, of picking (say) an anti-abortion candidate who holds many other positions one dislikes because one's stake in one's position on abortion is that important. That's not the kind of thing I mean, and I don't think it's the kind of thing most people mean when they say people are making mistakes by "voting against their own interests", though the effect of such a choice may well be that one is also in these cases (consciously!) voting against one's own interests on various issues.
I agree there are incorrect information, incorrect analysis, and incorrect predictions by the electorate. What I am saying is that in aggregate, the political machine on both sides is fully incentivized with enough financial and media backing to counter the other side. It is not even inconceivable to see each individual vote for their "right" candidate for the wrong reasons. I fully acknowledge that.
In aggregate, however, I believe in the US presidential elections end up voting for their own best interests, as they see it, and even if they become unhappy with the state of the world after four years, it appears to be unlikely to find people who say they would have switched votes. If anything, they are becoming more polarized and committed to one side, thus harder to "fool." In that sense, they are not mistaken. The human experience is not a set of entirely quantifiable metrics, and being "happily-fooled" is also a human interest, as long as they don't get buyer's remorse. Lots of buyer's remorse is really the only metric that can prove the counterpoint.
What GP is saying is isomorphic to telling Apple customers "you don't know your interests and Apple is charging you too much while keeping you in the walled garden." Maybe right, maybe wrong, but who are you to judge they would have been better off with a Dell?
> In aggregate, however, I believe in the US presidential elections end up voting for their own best interests, as they see it
This is extremely close to one of the early "OK, but maybe there's a reason what we're observing at the individual level isn't so scary" hypotheses explored by political science in the latter half of the 20th century—that individually poor choices would nonetheless produce good outcomes by being in some way chaotic and the good outcomes often manifesting as attractors in that chaotic space, or something like that, or by some "wisdom of the crowds" effect that emerges in aggregate. These approaches have been found untenable despite much trying, though I think there are some limited efforts at it still under way.
HOWEVER! I think after this post I do see what you're actually getting at, which is that if people believe they voted in their own best interests ("as they see it" being key) then they may believe they did in-fact do that indefinitely, even if entirely incorrect, so long as they... well, continue to believe so.
The prisoner voting to remain a prisoner not because they don't want to be free—not because if you describe completely and in detail, leaving nothing out, the conditions they're in-fact in they tell you they would love to live that way (they claim they would hate it!), and then if you also describe free life they claim that is the outcome they would rather have, and if you carefully probe you find that it's not even for some greater-interest purpose they are voting to remain imprisoned (it's not that they believe they'd be a danger to others if free, for example), but because they believe they aren't in prison despite [gestures at their prison cell]—is voting in their own interest.
By that standard, yes, a lot more voters are voting in their own interest than may be reckoned by other standards.
Yes your penultimate paragraph is my core point. I argue that’s the real standard. Freedom means different things to different people. If you try to define it objectively, you quickly are in the realm of ideology and then wondering why half of the country reject such ideology, while describing their behavior as “against their interest.”
The Mullah regime in Iran also tries to forcefully direct people to heaven, because they think that’s in their best interest long term and they don’t know better. In fact they sometimes even use the same phrases used in your analogy to refer to mortal life: a prison.
It's great that you two were able to come to an understanding & all, but your agreement leads me to wonder if many voters choose to fixate on culture war issues in an attempt to distract from real quality of life problems that seem impossible to fix and thus just better to accept.
Yeah I used to be for it on grounds of liberty but having seen a little of the actual industry it’s just purely corrosive, evil shit. It should be fought.
I’d maybe be OK with some kind of well-thought-through thing that still allowed friendly poker matches or sports brackets between people who actually know each other, but got the big money out of it. Maybe just ban corporations from having anything to do with it so limited-liability and serious investment is taken off the table? Something along those lines? But it’s also bad enough that I’d definitely vote for an outright ban if it came up. Complete switch-around for me on this topic, from where I was on it for years.
No casino gambling. Casino gambling is not gambling. It's putting $1.00 into a machine and getting $0.80 back, but the exact refund amount after every dollar put in is arbitrary. There's absolutely no risk to the casino, the casino is not gambling. The only gambling being done is by individual bettors, and they have an expected massive loss.
I don't care very much if people gamble with each other, and expect $1 back for every $1 they put in.* But casino games and lootboxes are specifically designed for consistent losses to the house. It's simply another tax, but on the addicted, desperate, and/or innumerate. The weakest people at their weakest moments; and if we're not protecting them, the government has no purpose.
* I actually think that it is good for people who have the same wealth levels to gamble with each other, as long as the outcomes are largely random. The problem is with vigs, and with pots that get too large to cover against a house that can endlessly extend itself.
Yeah, I think you nailed it. A ban on playing against "the house" would do it. Taking a fixed amount from each pot (as at poker tables) for play among patrons would still be allowed, but slot machines wouldn't. Your solution's much better than a full ban because it wouldn't drive as much illegal betting (a problem no only because it circumvents the law, but because for gambling in particular but for any black market, really, it tends to become connected with other criminal activity)
It’s hard to express how frustrating it is to try to allow kids access to tech and the Web (it’s kind of important that they have at least some access! And isn’t a bunch of this allegedly for super-charging learning and exploration of the world?) while basically every platform and vendor (of most any kind) except Apple’s and Nintendo’s stuff is somewhere between mediocre and annoying, and utter shit on this front (even, and in some ways especially, open source operating systems) and none of these goddamn things coordinate or communicate with one another (and of course SSO, basically a necessity for even starting to tackle that kind of problem, is an “enterprise” feature for almost every vendor)
Then we’re told this is all our fault. Meanwhile schools send home devices that don’t lock or at least disable Web access at night, and I can’t admin those to fix that dumbfuck oversight. To point out just one of many ways we get undermined. This is a whole bunch of stress and work that simply did not used to exist for parents and I absolutely get why a lot just stop trying.
It’s far easier to just pirate (nearly all?) GOG games. Like there are torrents with big chunks of their entire store on them, and I’ve seen allusions to an unofficial “store” that just has all(?) their games on it for free. I doubt many people are abusing the refund system because going through those steps is more work than piracy.
> Plus the whole professional CS tournament scene is sponsored by these predatory casinos
I once had a glimpse behind the scenes of the online sports gambling industry (only for a few months—turns out that was my limit of how utterly disgusting an industry I could participate in and still, literally, sleep at night!) and it answered a question for me.
The question was: “How did professional gaming get so incredibly big so very fast?” Its quick rise seemed to me to have started well before the broad normalization and rise of gaming in mainstream pop culture, so had always seemed to me like the cart coming before the horse, and I’d never been able to figure out how or why it’d happened that way.
The answer was gambling. Professional video gaming is all but completely a gambling industry. That’s where the money and promotion came from. Sponsorships, sure, but that’s secondary and would drop off to a large degree without the boost from gambling. And I mean gambling on the matches, not just sponsorship by gambling sites. It’s a betting industry.
(Online gambling’s also all wrapped up in right wing political money and funding right wing media[!] in, at least, the US, was another thing I learned that I hadn’t expected)
I think gambling came in more in later waves. The first wave of popularity (mostly StarCraft, LoL and fighting games) tended more towards funding from sponsors, and not gambling ones (red bull, monster energy, gaming peripheral makers, the game devs themselves, mobile games).
I don’t know much about lol or fighting games but the starcraft pro scene exploded after a gambling/match fixing scandal back in 2010! The first wave absolutely had this problem
> I once had a glimpse behind the scenes of the online sports gambling industry (only for a few months—turns out that was my limit of how utterly disgusting an industry I could participate in and still, literally, sleep at night!) and it answered a question for me.
I worked in online gambling for about 10 years in the UK. I found how charities and local/national government worked far worse and I was far more frustrated with their attitudes.
e.g. I found an SQL Injection vulnerability with dynamic SQL in a large UK charity (I won't say which one). I reported this to my boss. He kinda just shrugged his shoulders. Similar attitudes were present in local government. The gambling industry was the complete opposite and took security very seriously.
What bothered me the most about charities and government was that on the outside they were giving the impression of having a virtuous purpose. Whereas the gambling sites didn't, it was simply "Try to win some cash".
As a former addict (alcohol), I don't have much sympathy for people that blame the companies for the problems of addicts. The problem ultimately lies with the individual. I was the one that choose to drink. The brewary, the bar, or the off-license never forced the drink down my throat. People choose to go to the casino, in the same way they choose to go to the bar.
> The question was: “How did professional gaming get so incredibly big so very fast?” Its quick rise seemed to me to have started well before the broad normalization and rise of gaming in mainstream pop culture, so had always seemed to me like the cart coming before the horse, and I’d never been able to figure out how or why it’d happened that way.
Many of the classic videos games were made to relieve you of change in Arcades. Nearby to where I live there are still classic seaside arcade. They still have machines similar to Sega Rally and Time Crisis there. Video gaming and quasi-gambling have been intertwined since the birth of the industry.
> The answer was gambling. Professional video gaming is all but completely a gambling industry. That’s where the money and promotion came from. Sponsorships, sure, but that’s secondary and would drop off to a large degree without the boost from gambling. And I mean gambling on the matches, not just sponsorship by gambling sites. It’s a betting industry.
This is all professional sports (even going back to long ago as the Roman Empire). There is nothing special about professional video gaming.
The industry saw that people were interested in watching matches between highly skilled people. Any form of entertainment/news/sports is bankrolled by advertising and/or gambling.
Many of these large events came out of more grass roots events like large lan parties. These were pretty big in the late 90s to early 2000s.
> (Online gambling’s also all wrapped up in right wing political money and funding right wing media[!] in, at least, the US, was another thing I learned that I hadn’t expected)
Gambling tends to attract the more profit orientated which roughly aligns with what is considered "right wing" (at least in the US). I found the industry to be pretty apolitical as a whole. Many of the C-suite and above seemed to be actually relatively left-wing at least in some view points. It was odd when the top executives were far at least on somethings far more to the left than I was.
The whole idea even accepting the core premise is OK to begin with needs to have a similar analysis applied to it that medical tests do: will there be enough false positives, with enough harm caused by them, that this is actually worse than doing nothing? Compared with likelihood of improving an outcome and how bad a failure to intervene is on average, of course.
Given that there's no relevant screening step here and it's just being applied to everyone who happens to be at a place it's truly incredible that such an analysis would shake out in favor of this tech. The false positive rate would have to be vanishingly tiny, and it's simply not plausible that's true. And that would have to be coupled with a pretty low false negative rate, or you'd need an even lower false positive rate to make up for how little good it's doing even when it's not false-positiving.
So I'm sure that analysis was either deliberately never performed, or was and then was ignored and not publicized. So, yes, it's a fraud.
(There's also the fact that as soon as these are known to be present, they'll have little or no effect on the very worst events involving firearms at schools—shooters would just avoid any scheme that involved loitering around with a firearm where the cameras can see them, and count on starting things very soon after arriving—like, once you factor in second order effects, too, there's just no hope for these standing up to real scrutiny)
I already adjust my clothing choices when flying to account for TSA's security theater make-work bullshit. Wonder how long before I'm doing that when preparing to go to other public places.
(I suppose if I attended pro sports games or large concerts, I'd be doing it for those, too)
I was getting pulled out of line in the 90’s for having long hair. I don’t dress in shitty clothes or fancy ones, I didn’t look funny, just the hair, which got regular compliments from women.
I started looking at people trying to decide who looked juicy to the security folks and getting in line behind them. They can’t harass two people in rapid succession. Or at least not back then.
The one I felt most guilty about, much later, was a filipino woman with a Philippine passport. Traveling alone. Flying to Asia (super suspect!). I don’t know why I thought they would tag her, but they did. I don’t fly well and more stress just escalates things, so anything that makes my day tiny bit less shitty and isn’t rude I’m going to do. But probably her day would have been better for not getting searched than mine was.
