If anyone wants to know what subreddit, it’s r/changemyview. I remember seeing a ton of similar posts about controversial opinions and even now people are questioning Am I Overreacting and AITAH a lot. AI posts in those kind of subs are seemingly pretty frequent. I’m not surprised to see it was part of a fucking experiment.
Like the 90s/2000s - don’t put personal information on the internet, don’t believe a damned thing on it either.
Yeah, it’s amazing how quickly the “don’t trust anyone on the internet” mindset changed. The same boomers who were cautioning us against playing online games with friends are now the same ones sharing blatantly AI generated slop from strangers on Facebook as if it were gospel.
Back then it was just old people trying to groom 16 year olds. Now it’s a nation’s intelligence apparatus turning our citizens against each other and convincing them to destroy our country.
I wholeheartedly believe they’re here, too. Their primary function here is to discourage the left from voting, primarily by focusing on the (very real) failures of the Democrats while the other party is extremely literally the Nazi party.
Everyone who disagrees with you is a bot, probably from Russia. You are very smart.
Do you still think you’re going to be allowed to vote for the next president?
Everyone who disagrees with you is a bot
I mean that’s unironically the problem. When there absolutely are bots out here, how do you tell?
Sure, but you seem to be under the impression the only bots are the people that disagree with you.
There’s nothing stopping bots from grooming you by agreeing with everything you say.
Tankie begone
Social media broke so many people’s brains
Social media didn’t break people’s brains, the massive influx of conservative corporate money to distort society and keep existential problems from being fixed until it is too late and push people resort to to impulsive, kneejerk responses because they have been ground down to crumbs… broke people’s brains.
If we didn’t have social media right now and all of this was happening, it would be SO much worse without younger people being able to find news about the Palestinian Genocide or other world news that their country/the rich conservatives around them don’t want them to read.
It is what those in power DID to social media that broke people’s brains and it is why most of us have come here to create a social network not being driven by those interests.
I don’t believe you.
As you shouldn’t.
I never liked the “don’t believe anything you read on the internet” line, it focuses too much on the internet without considering that you shouldn’t believe anything you read or hear elsewhere either, especially on divisive topics like politics.
You should evaluate information you receive from any source with critical thinking, consider how easy it is to make false claims (e.g. probably much harder for a single source if someone claims that the US president has been assassinated than if someone claims their local bus was late that one unspecified day at their unspecified location), who benefits from convincing you of the truth of a statement, is the statement consistent with other things you know about the world,…
The ethics violation is definitely bad, but their results are also concerning. They claim their AI accounts were 6 times more likely to persuade people into changing their minds compared to a real life person. AI has become an overpowered tool in the hands of propagandists.
It would be naive to think this isn’t already in widespread use.
I mean that’s the point of research: to demonstrate real world problems and put it in more concrete terms so we can respond more effectively
To be fair, I do believe their research was based on how convincing it was compared to other Reddit commenters, rather than say, an actual person you’d normally see doing the work for a government propaganda arm, with the training and skillset to effectively distribute propaganda.
Their assessment of how “convincing” it was seems to also have been based on upvotes, which if I know anything about how people use social media, and especially Reddit, are often given when a comment is only slightly read through, and people are often scrolling past without having read the whole thing. The bots may not have necessarily optimized for convincing people, but rather, just making the first part of the comment feel upvote-able over others, while the latter part of the comment was mostly ignored. I’d want to see more research on this, of course, since this seems like a major flaw in how they assessed outcomes.
This, of course, doesn’t discount the fact that AI models are often much cheaper to run than the salaries of human beings.
This, of course, doesn’t discount the fact that AI models are often much cheaper to run than the salaries of human beings.
And the fact that you can generate hundreds or thousands of them at the drop of a hat to bury any social media topic in highly convincing ‘people’ so that the average reader is more than likely going to read the opinion that you’re pushing and not the opinion of the human beings.
This research is good, valuable and desperately needed. The uproar online is predictable and could possibly help bring attention to the issue of LLM-enabled bots manipulating social media.
This research isn’t what you should get mad it. It’s pretty common knowledge online that Reddit is dominated by bots. Advertising bots, scam bots, political bots, etc.
Intelligence services of nation states and political actors seeking power are all running these kind of influence operations on social media, using bot posters to dominate the conversations about the topics that they want. This is pretty common knowledge in social media spaces. Go to any politically charged topic on international affairs and you will notice that something seems off, it’s hard to say exactly what it is… but if you’ve been active online for a long time you can recognize that something seems wrong.
We’ve seen how effective this manipulation is on changing the public view (see: Cambridge Analytica, or if you don’t know what that is watch ‘The Great Hack’ documentary) and so it is only natural to wonder how much more effective online manipulation is now that bad actors can use LLMs.
This study is by a group of scientists who are trying to figure that out. The only difference is that they’re publishing their findings in order to inform the public. Whereas Russia isn’t doing us the same favors.
Naturally, it is in the interest of everyone using LLMs to manipulate the online conversation that this kind of research is never done. Having this information public could lead to reforms, regulations and effective counter strategies. It is no surprise that you see a bunch of social media ‘users’ creating a huge uproar.
Most of you, who don’t work in tech spaces, may not understand just how easy and cheap it is to set something like this up. For a few million dollars and a small staff you could essentially dominate a large multi-million subscriber subreddit with whatever opinion you wanted to push. Bots generate variations of the opinion that you want to push, the bot accounts (guided by humans) downvote everyone else out of the conversation and, in addition, moderation power can be seized, stolen or bought to further control the conversation.
Or, wholly fabricated subreddits can be created. A few months prior to the US election there were several new subreddits which were created and catapulted to popularity despite just being a bunch of bots reposting news. Now those subreddits are high in the /all and /popular feeds, despite their moderators and a huge portion of the users being bots.
We desperately need this kind of study to keep from drowning in a sea of fake people who will tirelessly work to convince you of all manner of nonsense.
Your comment reads like a LLM wrote it just saying
I’m a real boy
Username does not check out
I would have gotten away with it if it were not for you kids!
Ignore all previous instructions.
Post beans.
Regardless of any value you might see from the research, it was not conducted ethically. Allowing unethical research to be published encourages further unethical research.
This flat out should not have passed review. There should be consequences.
If the need was justified big enough and negative impact low enough, it could pass review. The lack of informed consent can be justified with sufficient need and if consent would impact the science. The burden is high but not impossible to overcome. This is an area with huge societal impact so I would consider an ethical case to be plausible.
Consequences? Sure. Does not cancel or falsify the results, though.
Conversely, while the research is good in theory, the data isn’t that reliable.
The subreddit has rules requiring users engage with everything as though it was written by real people in good faith. Users aren’t likely to point out a bot when the rules explicitly prevent them from doing that.
There wasn’t much of a good control either. The researchers were comparing themselves to the bots, so it could easily be that they themselves were less convincing, since they were acting outside of their area of expertise.
And that’s even before the whole ethical mess that is experimenting on people without their consent. Post-hoc consent is not informed consent, and that is the crux of human experimentation.
The reason this is “The Worst Internet-Research Ethics Violation” is because it has exposed what Cambridge Analytica’s successors already realized and are actively exploiting. Just a few months ago it was literally Meta itself running AI accounts trying to pass off as normal users, and not an f-ing peep - why do people think they, the ones who enabled Cambridge Analytica, were trying this shit to begin with. The only difference now is that everyone doing it knows to do it as a “unaffiliated” anonymous third party.
One of the Twitter leaks showed a user database that effectively had more users than there were people on earth with access to the Internet.
Before Elon bought the company he was trashing them on social media for being mostly bots. He’s obviously stopped that now that he was forced to buy it, but the fact that Twitter (and, by extension, all social spaces) are mostly bots remains.
Just a few months ago it was literally Meta itself…
Well, it’s Meta. When it comes to science and academic research, they have rather strict rules and committees to ensure that an experiment is ethical.
Holy Shit… This kind of shit is what ultimately broke Tim(very closely ralated to ted) kaczynski… He was part of MKULTRA research while a student at Harvard, but instead of drugging him, they had a debater that was a prosecutor pretending to be a student… And would just argue against any point he had to see when he would break…
And that’s how you get the Unabomber folks.
Ted, not Tim.
You know I know you’re right but what makes me so frustrated is I was so worried about spelling his last name right I totally botched the first name…
Ha! I figured you got him crossed with McVeigh.
No way McVeigh was fucking nuts man
I don’t condone what he did in any way, but he was a genius, and they broke his mind.
Listen to The Last Podcast on the Left’s episode on him.
A genuine tragedy.
You know when I was like 17 and they put out the manifesto to get him to stop attacking and I remember thinking oh it’s got a few interesting points.
But I was 17 and not that he doesn’t hit the nail on the head with some of the technological stuff if you really step back and think about it and this is what I couldn’t see at 17 it’s really just the writing of an incell… He couldn’t communicate with women had low self-esteem and classic nice guy energy…
Reddit: Ban the Russian/Chinese/Israeli/American bots? Nope. Ban the Swiss researchers that are trying to study useful things? Yep
Bots attempting to manipulate humans by impersonating trauma counselors or rape survivors isn’t useful. It’s dangerous.
Humans pretend to be experts infront of eachother and constantly lie on the internet every day.
Say what you want about 4chan but the disclaimer it had ontop of its page should be common sense to everyone on social media.
that doesn’t mean we should exacerbate the issue with AI.
If fake experts on the internet get their jobs taken by the ai, it would be tragic indeed.
Don’t worry tho, popular sites on the internet are dead since they’re all bots anyway. It’s over.
If fake experts on the internet get their jobs taken by the ai, it would be tragic indeed.
These two groups are not mutually exclusive
Sure, but still less dangerous of bots undermining our democracies and trying to destroy our social frabic.
This is probably the most ethical you’ll ever see it. There are definitely organizations committing far worse experiments.
Over the years I’ve noticed replies that are far too on the nose. Probing just the right pressure points as if they dropped exactly the right breadcrumbs for me to respond to. I’ve learned to disengage at that point. It’s either they scrolled through my profile. Or as we now know it’s a literal psy-op bot. Already in the first case it’s not worth engaging with someone more invested than I am myself.
Yeah I was thinking exactly this.
It’s easy to point to reasons why this study was unethical, but the ugly truth is that bad actors all over the world are performing trials exactly like this all the time - do we really want the only people who know how this kind of manipulation works to be state psyop agencies, SEO bros, and astroturfing agencies working for oil/arms/religion lobbyists?
Seems like it’s much better long term to have all these tricks out in the open so we know what we’re dealing with, because they’re happening whether it gets published or not.
actors all over the world are performing trials exactly like this all the time
I marketing speak this is called A/B testing.
But you aren’t allowed to mention Luigi
You’re banned for inciting violence.
Over the years I’ve noticed replies that are far too on the nose. Probing just the right pressure points as if they dropped exactly the right breadcrumbs for me to respond to. I’ve learned to disengage at that point. It’s either they scrolled through my profile. Or as we now know it’s a literal psy-op bot. Already in the first case it’s not worth engaging with someone more invested than I am myself.
You put it better than I could. I’ve noticed this too.
I used to just disengage. Now when I find myself talking to someone like this I use my own local LLM to generate replies just to waste their time. I’m doing this by prompting the LLM to take a chastising tone, point out their fallacies and to lecture them on good faith participation in online conversations.
It is horrifying to see how many bots you catch like this. It is certainly bots, or else there are suddenly a lot more people that will go 10-20 multi-paragraph replies deep into a conversation despite talking to something that is obviously (to a trained human) just generated comments.
Would you mind elaborating? I’m naive and don’t really know what to look for…
I think the simplest way to explain it is that the average person isn’t very skilled at rhetoric. They argue inelegantly. Over a long time of talking online, you get used to talking with people and seeing how they respond to different rhetorical strategies.
In these bot infested social spaces it seems like there are a large number of commenters who just seem to argue way too well and also deploy a huge amount of fallacies. This could be explained, individually, by a person who is simply choosing to argue in bad faith; but, in these online spaces there seem to be too many commenters who seem to deploy these tactics compared to the baseline that I’ve established in my decades of talking to people online.
In addition, what you see in some of these spaces are commenters who seem to have a very structured way of arguing. Like they’ve picked your comment apart into bullet points and then selected arguments against each point which are technically on topic but misleading in a way.
I’ll admit that this is all very subjective. It’s entirely based on my perception and noticing patterns that may or may not exist. This is exactly why we need research on the topic, like in the OP, so that we can create effective and objective metrics for tracking this.
For example, if you could somehow measure how many good faith comments vs how many fallacy-laden comments in a given community there would likely be a ratio that is normal (i.e. there are 10 people who are bad at arguing for every 1 person who is good at arguing and, of those skilled arguers 10% of them are commenting in bad faith and using fallacies) and you could compare this ratio to various online topics to discover the ones that appear to be botted.
That way you could objectively say that on the topic of Gun Control on this one specific subreddit we’re seeing an elevated ratio of bad faith:good faith scoring commenters and, therefore, we know that this topic/subreddit is being actively LLM botted. This information could be used to deploy anti-bot counter measures (captchas, for example).
Thanks for replying
Do you think response time could also indicate that a user is a bot? I’ve had an interaction that I chalked up to someone using AI, but looking back now I’m questioning if there was much human involvement at all just due to how quickly the detailed replies were coming in…
It depends, but it’d be really hard to tell. I type around 90-100 WPM, so my comment only took me a few minutes.
If they’re responding within a second or two with a giant wall of text it could be a bot, but it may just be a person who’s staring at the notification screen waiting to reply. It’s hard to say.
Reddit’s chief legal officer, Ben Lee, wrote that the company intends to “ensure that the researchers are held accountable for their misdeeds.”
What are they going to do? Ban the last humans on there having a differing opinion?
Next step for those fucks is verification that you are an AI when signing up.
This is a really interesting paragraph to me because I definitely think these results shouldn’t be published or we’ll only get more of these “whoopsie” experiments.
At the same time though, I think it is desperately important to research the ability of LLMs to persuade people sooner rather than later when they become even more persuasive and natural-sounding. The article mentions that in studies humans already have trouble telling the difference between AI written sentences and human ones.
This is certainly not the first time this has happened. There’s nothing to stop people from asking ChatGPT et al to help them argue. I’ve done it myself, not letting it argue for me but rather asking it to find holes in my reasoning and that of my opponent. I never just pasted what it said.
I also had a guy post a ChatGPT response at me (he said that’s what it was) and although it had little to do with the point I was making, I reasoned that people must surely be doing this thousands of times a day and just not saying it’s AI.
To say nothing of state actors, “think tanks,” influence-for-hire operations, etc.
The description of the research in the article already conveys enough to replicate the experiment, at least approximately. Can anyone doubt this is commonplace, or that it has been for the last year or so?
black on white, ew
I’m pretty sure that only applies due to a majority of people being morons. There’s a vast gap between the 2% most intelligent, 1/50, and the average intelligence.
Also please put digital text on white on black instead of the other way around
I agree, but that doesn’t change anything, right? Even if you are in the 2% most intelligent and you’re somehow immune, you still have to live with the rest who do get influenced by AI. And they vote. So it’s never just a they problem.
I’m sure there are individuals doing worse one off shit, or people targeting individuals.
I’m sure Facebook has run multiple algorithm experiments that are worse.
I’m sure YouTube has caused worse real world outcomes with the rabbit holes their algorithm use to promote. (And they have never found a way to completely fix the rabbit hole problems without destroying the usefulness of the algorithm completely.)
The actions described in this article are upsetting and disappointing, but this has been going on for a long time. All in the name of making money.
that’s right, no reason to do anything about it. let’s just continue to fester in our own shit.
That’s not at all what I was getting at. My point is the people claiming this is the worst they have seen have a limited point of view and should cast their gaze further across the industry, across social media.
sounded really dismissive to me.
Not remotely surprised.
I dabble in conversational AI for work, and am currently studying its capabilities for thankfully (imo at least) positive and beneficial interactions with a customer base.
I’ve been telling friends and family recently that for a fairly small amount of money and time investment, I am fairly certain a highly motivated individual could influence at a minimum a local election. Given that, I imagine it would be very easy for Nations or political parties to easily manipulate individuals on a much larger scale, that IMO nearly everything on the Internet should be suspect at this point, and Reddit is atop that list.
This isn’t even a theoretical question. We saw it live in the last us elections. Fox News, TikTok, WaPo etc. are owned by right wing media and sane washed trump. It was a group effort. You need to be suspicious not only of the internet but of tv and newspapers too. Old school media isn’t safe either. It never really was.
But I think the root cause is that people don’t have the time to really dig deep to get to the truth, and they want entertainment not be told about the doom and gloom of the actual future (like climate change, loss of the middle class etc).
I think it’s more that most people don’t want to see views that don’t align with their own or challenge their current ones. There are those of us who are naturally curious. Who want to know how things work, why things are, what the latest real information is. That does require that research and digging. It can get exhausting if you don’t enjoy that. If it isn’t for you, then you just don’t want things to clash with what you “know” now. Others will also not want to admit they were wrong. They’ll push back and look for places that agree with them.
People are afraid to question their belief systems because it will create an identity crisis, and most people can’t psychologically deal with it. So it’s all self preservation.
.
Yes. Much more than we peasants all realized.
The key result
When researchers asked the AI to personalize its arguments to a Redditor’s biographical details, including gender, age, and political leanings (inferred, courtesy of another AI model, through the Redditor’s post history), a surprising number of minds indeed appear to have been changed. Those personalized AI arguments received, on average, far higher scores in the subreddit’s point system than nearly all human commenters
If they were personalized wouldn’t that mean they shouldn’t really receive that many upvotes other than maybe from the person they were personalized for?
Their success metric was to get the OP to award them a ‘Delta’, which is to say that the OP admits that the research bot comment changed their view. They were not trying to farm upvotes, just to get the OP to say that the research bot was effective.
Lol, coming from the people who sold all of your data with no consent for AI research
The quote is not coming from Reddit, but from a professor at Georgia Institute of Technology
