[HN Gopher] Brazilian frog might be the first pollinating amphib...
___________________________________________________________________
Brazilian frog might be the first pollinating amphibian known to
science
Author : raybb
Score : 150 points
Date : 2023-05-03 17:41 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| [flagged]
| slmjkdbtl wrote:
| [flagged]
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| Thanks ChatGPT
| slmjkdbtl wrote:
| You're welcome! We hope you enjoyed your experience using
| our model and we look forward to seeing more of what you
| can create in the future :) #ChatbotGeneration
| rashkov wrote:
| Your personal site (in your profile) is quite the work of
| art, brought me joy
| slmjkdbtl wrote:
| Thank you so much! And sorry for the trolling.
| kranke155 wrote:
| Could be someone testing it out seeing if he can get away with
| it.
| tysam_and wrote:
| They sorta read like those ride reviews from the theme park
| denizens of SimCoaster tbh.
| skullone wrote:
| Do you have any examples before they were deleted? I wonder if
| I'd even recognize a fancy bot comment
| InitialLastName wrote:
| At the moment it's a few brand new accounts posting
| essentially the same content-less statement that covers the
| big points in the headline {novelty, pollination, frog}.
|
| Example: That's amazing! It's incredible that we are still
| discovering new species, and that some of them can even have
| special abilities like pollinating. I'm looking forward to
| reading more about this frog.
| throwawayadvsec wrote:
| I don't see the point of making bots on HN to post about
| some damn frogs
|
| those are probably just boring people
| detaro wrote:
| the point of the bots isn't posting about frogs, they are
| posting about frogs to (badly) look like users that have
| normal activity when they do start spamming or mass-
| upvoting.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Kind of concerning that "hey that's pretty neat" comments
| are immediately suspected (probably accurately) of being
| bots. A comment like that example isn't useful to the other
| comment readers, but it's probably pretty motivating to the
| author, and it makes forums more positive places. Removing
| the organic versions of those will make forums a more
| negative place, and that's a shame.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| I'd be more accepting of a "hey that's pretty neat"
| comment if it didn't read like the equivalent of a middle
| schooler's attempt to restate the headline as if they
| read the article (with some hallucinations, such as this
| being a newly-discovered species).
|
| Edit to add: Sibling comment has me questioning whether
| _I 'm_ a robot
| berlinmarzahn wrote:
| [dead]
| csallen wrote:
| Turn on "showdead" in your HN account settings, and you can
| see deleted content.
| LegitShady wrote:
| unfortunately this is the future of the entire internet - and
| not just the comments the submissions as well. the search for
| authenticity and actual human material will become the most
| valuable thing.
|
| This isn't that different from what we have now as people have
| abandoned corporate messaging for communities and
| podcasts/youtube/etc to try to find authentic human voices. The
| difference will be how much harder it will become to catch the
| bots.
| Blikkentrekker wrote:
| If it ever become impossible to spot a human from a bit, then
| bots become valuable contributors to online discussion with
| interesting insights so I don't see the problem.
| cubefox wrote:
| > We can thus imagine a technologically highly advanced
| society, containing many sorts of complex structures, some
| of which are much smarter and more intricate than anything
| that exists today, in which there would nevertheless be a
| complete absence of any type of being whose welfare has
| moral significance. In a sense, this would be an
| uninhabited society. All the kinds of being that we care
| even remotely about would have vanished.
|
| https://nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution
| dangling42 wrote:
| [dead]
| pizzeriaricardo wrote:
| [dead]
| bigdictinstance wrote:
| [flagged]
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/810/
| LegitShady wrote:
| that depends on what your purpose is for going online and
| engaging in social networks/forums
| hackbert wrote:
| And the tough part is new users being kicked out when someone
| thinks they're a bot. How do we protect people from the bot
| witch-hunt?
| noizejoy wrote:
| On the other hand if your human comment is
| indistinguishable from a bot comment, maybe it's ok to be
| kicked out?
|
| Related: Reverse Turing Test:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Turing_test
| LegitShady wrote:
| It depends on the community. I think its ok for humans to
| not be perfect, sometimes. Meanwhile I have no interest
| in what ChatGPT thinks about anything.
| ghoogl wrote:
| [dead]
| InitialLastName wrote:
| You've hit a pet peeve of mine:
|
| The key feature of witch hunts as a concept is the non-
| existence of witches. If you have a hunt for something that
| certainly exists (Soviet spies infiltrating US institutions
| come to mind) it definitively isn't a witch-hunt.
|
| For my part, I'm going to keep downvoting comments that say
| nothing in the most bland way imaginable, and flagging
| anyone who posts "I put your question into ChatGPT; here's
| what it says" (in contexts other than discussions of chat
| bots).
| cubefox wrote:
| I actually think some major commercial use cases of the
| OpenAI API are a) fake reviews on Amazon etc and b) SEO spam.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Without naming names - the other day, I sat on a
| presentation related to a commercial offering of some SOTA
| LLM APIs; there was a slide listing a dozen use cases
| claimed to have been piloted or already tested. I
| distinctly remember being a bit disgusted by how all,
| excepting one or two, were highly morally questionable, as
| they boiled down to improving or scaling all the usual ugly
| kinds of marketing and marketing-related surveillance
| schemes.
|
| The last time I felt this kind of disappointment was when
| those Bluetooth Low Energy beacons ("iBeacon") became a hot
| topic - a lot of startups popped up, and quite quickly,
| they've mostly settled on the same primary use case:
| retail. That is, tracking and spamming unsuspecting users
| as they move about shopping malls.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aamazon.com+%22as+an+
| a...
|
| It's already starting, humorously at least for now.
| [deleted]
| mmanfrin wrote:
| Very strange indeed, first I've seen it, but they're all the
| same format and all new accounts.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Bots seem to be seasonal creatures. Some months you won't see
| any. And then some months you'll see four per submission. I'd
| just downvote and reconvene when it seems to be a substantial
| issue.
|
| As for GPT, the bots you usually see on HN are just as easily
| written by humans. GPT makes sense for scale, but it's not very
| interesting when bots are posting at such low volume, so it
| doesn't necessarily have to be the case nor does it really
| change anything.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Yeah, bots - sure. GPT? No way. My rapid-classification
| pattern matcher, honed on two decades of running blogs and
| web bulletin boards, recognizes the shape, cadence and sound
| of these comments as indicative of the usual kind of spam
| comment, common in the last 15+ years.
|
| I.e. they came out of some boring, old-school script.
|
| (Though I do wonder, how much of the spam comments on random,
| long-forgotten wordpress blogs, ended up in the GPT-{3,4}
| training data.)
| doctoboggan wrote:
| I see 4 dead comments, but I suspect one of them is from a
| real human (derjanni)
| hackbert wrote:
| I've seen a lot of new users today that were rage silenced,
| including obviously human ones.
| samstave wrote:
| just curious, how do underwater plants pollinate in general,
| while Ive never thought about it - I guess it would be currents?
| tomrod wrote:
| PBS Eons has a few related videos iirc
| samstave wrote:
| But do they pollinate through their roots? because - then a
| whole realm of hydroponic polination for anything that can be
| pollinated through a root, would be really interesting.
|
| Think of real Wasabi - which thrives in very shallow,
| consistently flowing steams...
|
| -- Nevermind, I find the answers...
|
| Wasabi, still uses flowering insect polination in the wild,
| but is farmed via vegatative cloning.
|
| Seaweed is really interesting, male and female plants release
| cells that fuse to create the zygote
|
| ---
|
| Thanks for the min rabbit hole by posting this to HN
|
| ----
|
| Sexual reproduction in seaweed typically involves the
| production of male and female gametes, which are released
| into the water column. The gametes then fuse to form zygotes,
| which develop into a new seaweed plant.
|
| Asexual reproduction in seaweed involves the fragmentation of
| the plant, where pieces of the seaweed break off and develop
| into new individuals.
|
| In commercial seaweed farming, propagation is typically done
| through vegetative propagation or by seeding. Vegetative
| propagation involves taking cuttings from mature seaweed
| plants and growing them in a suitable environment until they
| form new plants. Seeding involves the placement of young
| spores or young plants onto lines or ropes, which are then
| suspended in the water and allowed to grow.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Most underwater "plants" are algae, too primitive to produce
| flowers. Their life cycles are complicated and the fecundation
| happens in special short lived individuals called gametophytes
| that are generated from spores and produce gametes that fuse
| into other spores. They don't produce pollen, so can't be
| pollinated.
|
| To speak crudely, pollen is like a vase that hosts inside a
| crew of "spermatozoan like" gametes and then injects them
| directly in the right place. Algae just release the gametes
| without the "mothership". Some have "smart" gametes that act
| basically like tiny animals. This was a headache for a lot of
| time until a new kingdom was created for "neither exactly a
| plant nor an animal".
|
| The upper aquatic plants normally just raise the flowers over
| the surface to use the old reliable insects (Lotus). Only a few
| remain totally submerged at all times (Posidonia) and those
| probably use crustaceans and sea currents as pollinators.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| This is super cute
| antalyagrill wrote:
| [dead]
| doenertier wrote:
| [dead]
| derjanni wrote:
| [dead]
| sarahbecker wrote:
| [dead]
| hackernj wrote:
| That's the bee's knees!
| darth_avocado wrote:
| This is strange but I swear growing up, I read in science
| textbooks that pollinators included insects, birds, mammals,
| reptiles AND AMPHIBIANS. Maybe I'm misremembering or it is one of
| those Mandela effect things?
| raybb wrote:
| The frog the article talks about:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenohyla_truncata
| dvt wrote:
| Awesome discovery, and I absolutely love this alliteration:
|
| > planet's pantheon of pollinators
| gweinberg wrote:
| Yeah, except it really isn't a pantheon. "Pandemonium" might
| work better.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-03 23:00 UTC)