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.
While that is indeed what was reported, we and the researchers will never know if the posters with shifted opinions were human or in fact also AI bots.
The whole thing is dodgy for lack of controls, this isn’t science it’s marketing
Fucking a. I. And their apologist script kiddies. worse than fucking Facebook in its disinformation
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.
But you aren’t allowed to mention Luigi
You’re banned for inciting violence.
Free Luigi
Eat the rich
The police are a terrorist organization
Trump and Epstein bff
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.
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.
It hurts them right in the feels when someone uses their platform better than them. How dare those researchers manipulate their manipulations!
deleted by creator
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.
Sure, but still less dangerous of bots undermining our democracies and trying to destroy our social frabic.
deleted by creator
that doesn’t mean we should exacerbate the issue with AI.
deleted by creator
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
Added to idcaboutprivacy (which is open source). If there are any other similar links, feel free to add them or send them my way.
Imagine what the people doing this professionally do, since they know they won’t face the scrutiny of publication.
What a bunch of fear mongering, anti science idiots.
You think it’s anti science to want complete disclosure when you as a person are being experimented on?
What kind of backwards thinking is that?
Not when disclosure ruins the experiment. Nobody was harmed or even could be harmed unless they are dead stupid, in which case the harm is already inevitable. This was posting on social media, not injecting people with random pathogens. Have a little perspective.
You do realize the ends do not justify the means?
You do realize that MANY people on social media have emotional and mental situations occuring and that these experiments can have ramifications that cannot be traced?
This is just a small reason why this is so damn unethical
In that case, any interaction would be unethical. How do you know that I don’t have an intense fear of the words “justify the means”? You could have just doomed me to a downward spiral ending in my demise. As if I didn’t have enough trouble. You not only made me see it, you tricked me into typing it.
you are being beyond silly.
in no way is what you just posited true . unsuspecting nd non malicious social faux pas are in no way equal to Intentionally secretive manipulation used to garner data from unsuspecting people
that was an embarrassingly bad attempt to defend an indefensible position, and one no-one would blame you for deleting and re-trying
Well, you are trying embarrassingly hard to silence me at least. That is fine. I was definitely positing an unlikely but possible case, I do suffer from extreme anxiety and what sets it off has nothing to do with logic, but you are also overstating the ethics violation by suggesting that any harm they could cause is real or significant in a way that wouldn’t happen with regular interaction on random forums.
I was unaware that “Internet Ethics” was a thing that existed in this multiverse
Bad ethics are still ethics.
No - it’s research ethics. As in you get informed consent. It just involves the Internet.
If the research contains any sort of human behavior recorded, all participants must know ahead of it and agree to participate in it.
This is a blanket attempt to study human behavior without an IRB and not having to have any regulators or anyone other than tech bros involved.
deleted by creator
Meh. Believe none of what you hear and very little of what you can see
Unless a person is in front of you, don’t assume anything is real online. I mean it. Nothing online cannot be faked, nothing online HASNT been faked.
The least trustworthy place in the universe. Is the internet.
Realistic AI generated faces have been available for longer than realistic AI generated conversation ability.
LOL (while I cry)
This just shows how gullible and stupid the average Reddit user is. There’s a reason that there’s so many meme’s mocking them and calling them beta soyjacks.
It’s kind of true.
Judging by your comment history, you are the beta soyjack.
It’s true.
I think it’s a straw-man issue, hyped beyond necessity to avoid the real problem. Moderation has always been hard, with AI it’s only getting worse. Avoiding the research because it’s embarrassing just prolongs and deepens the problem
Wow you mean reddit is banning real users and replacing them with bots???
