To be fair, though, this experiment was stupid as all fuck. It was run on /r/changemyview to see if users would recognize that the comments were created by bots. The study’s authors conclude that the users didn’t recognize this. [EDIT: To clarify, the study was seeing if it could persuade the OP, but they did this in a subreddit where you aren’t allowed to call out AI. If an LLM bot gets called out as such, its persuasiveness inherently falls off a cliff.]
Except, you know, Rule 3 of commenting in that subreddit is: “Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, of using ChatGPT or other AI to generate text, [emphasis not even mine] or of arguing in bad faith.”
It’s like creating a poll to find out if women in Afghanistan are okay with having their rights taken away but making sure participants have to fill it out under the supervision of Hibatullah Akhundzada. “Obviously these are all brainwashed sheep who love the regime”, happily concludes the dumbest pollster in history.
I don’t think so. Yeah the researchers broke the rules of the subreddit but it’s not like every other company that uses AI for advertising, promotional purposes, propaganda, and misinformation will adhere to those rules.
The mods and community should not assume that just because the rules say no AI does not mean that people won’t use it for nefarious purposes. While this study doesn’t really add anything new we didn’t already know or assume, it does highlight how we should be vigilant and cautious about what we see on the Internet.
Reread the rule @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world listed; it’s not a rule against posting AI, it’s a rule against accusing people of posting AI, the very thing they were trying to prompt people to do.
So, if nobody accuses them, is it because nobody noticed, or is it because nobody wanted to break the no-accusing rule? It’s impossible to tell, which makes the results of the study worthless.
Can you explain your complaint a bit more? I’m trying to figure out just what you mean with your comment, but all I can see out of it is “reddit sucks”. Which… yeah, but in this instance why?
To be fair, though, this experiment was stupid as all fuck. It was run on /r/changemyview to see if users would recognize that the comments were created by bots. The study’s authors conclude that the users didn’t recognize this. [EDIT: To clarify, the study was seeing if it could persuade the OP, but they did this in a subreddit where you aren’t allowed to call out AI. If an LLM bot gets called out as such, its persuasiveness inherently falls off a cliff.]
Except, you know, Rule 3 of commenting in that subreddit is: “Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, of using ChatGPT or other AI to generate text, [emphasis not even mine] or of arguing in bad faith.”
It’s like creating a poll to find out if women in Afghanistan are okay with having their rights taken away but making sure participants have to fill it out under the supervision of Hibatullah Akhundzada. “Obviously these are all brainwashed sheep who love the regime”, happily concludes the dumbest pollster in history.
Wow. That’s really fucking stupid.
I don’t think so. Yeah the researchers broke the rules of the subreddit but it’s not like every other company that uses AI for advertising, promotional purposes, propaganda, and misinformation will adhere to those rules.
The mods and community should not assume that just because the rules say no AI does not mean that people won’t use it for nefarious purposes. While this study doesn’t really add anything new we didn’t already know or assume, it does highlight how we should be vigilant and cautious about what we see on the Internet.
Reread the rule @TheTechnician27@lemmy.world listed; it’s not a rule against posting AI, it’s a rule against accusing people of posting AI, the very thing they were trying to prompt people to do.
So, if nobody accuses them, is it because nobody noticed, or is it because nobody wanted to break the no-accusing rule? It’s impossible to tell, which makes the results of the study worthless.
Ah well it would appear I should have read the original comment with a little more attention
And even if they did accuse, mods would have removed the comments.
Reddit has great rules…
Can you explain your complaint a bit more? I’m trying to figure out just what you mean with your comment, but all I can see out of it is “reddit sucks”. Which… yeah, but in this instance why?