[HN Gopher] Anti-ChatGPT
___________________________________________________________________
Anti-ChatGPT
Author : omarfarooq
Score : 84 points
Date : 2023-10-28 20:48 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| The fact I can't tell if this is a parody or a serious project
| says a lot about the state of the internet today.
| j45 wrote:
| Maybe it's a bit of an art piece.
|
| Maybe it's a bit of both.
|
| Or like most things good or bad depending on the way it's used.
| andybak wrote:
| The poor proof-reading rather limited my ability to take it
| seriously. "ADS" in all caps...
| Fnoord wrote:
| Ads is short for advertisement. Therefore ADs (he doesn't
| mention ADS in all caps) doesn't make sense. But author might
| not be native speaker.
|
| Dev Aggarwal seems like an Indian name (to be clear: from
| culture of India). His profile at [1] suggests he is one of
| the main programmers behind the social network Dara Network.
| This 'Anti-ChatGPT' feature could be tested and/or used on
| said project.
|
| [1] https://dara.network/dev/
| schleck8 wrote:
| Pretty sure Google capitalizes AD in embedded content
| npunt wrote:
| You are just scratching the surface on something very big here.
| Media filtering is going to define the AI era and shape our every
| experience.
| spacecadet wrote:
| Already has been.
| xvector wrote:
| This is why I think locking GenAI models down is fundamentally
| bullshit - it simply enables greater censorship and centralizes
| power.
| jackhammons wrote:
| Weird project name but cool concept. Expect we'll see a lot more
| of this concept...
| mbil wrote:
| Yeah the project name is kinda clickbaity, ironically. Love the
| idea though
| generalizations wrote:
| Vernor Vinge predicted this - the "net of a million lies",
| filtered for human consumption by AI tools.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I don't think hiding manipulative content is the right path here.
| Instead of burying your head in the sand, it would be better to
| make people aware of the manipulation and expose the techniques
| and messages they use to that end. What do they want you to
| believe, and why? That puts you in a much more powerful position.
| generalizations wrote:
| Or, even simpler - replace it with the 1-2 word version of the
| message so that it's obvious and blatant. Like the 'They Live'
| movie. Long as it's a decent AI at reasonable speed, that
| sounds incredibly useful.
|
| Edit: if those apple glasses take off, and we can live-edit
| text in the real world (if it's done, it'd probably be for sign
| translation etc) - those 'They Live' glasses could probably
| become an actual reality.
| cafeoh wrote:
| It _would_ be extremely useful to know what people want you to
| believe and why, but how on earth do you figure out someone 's
| intent?
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Attempts to manipulate public perception are usually launched
| as campaigns with lots of content pushing the same message,
| often in different ways. In the case of mass media, for
| example, you could detect manipulation efforts by finding
| commonalities across multiple articles from one media outlet
| or by finding commonalities across multiple media outlets.
| It's possible you could distill this down to something like
| "From October 14 through October 23, content from media
| outlets X, Y, and Z seem to be correlated and are pushing the
| same message, and that message is ---".
|
| Having that knowledge would be extremely powerful,
| effectively neutering manipulation efforts by identifying
| them as such. A person is far less susceptible to
| manipulation if they are aware of the belief that the
| manipulator is attempting to instill in their mind.
| labster wrote:
| You should be able to build a profile of a person based on
| adtech, credit score, and social credit score/surveillance.
| With enough data on everyone we could easily determine intent
| with AI.
|
| Though for some reason minorities always have questionable
| intentions, but whatever, it's basically a utopia already.
| freedomben wrote:
| In reality you can't, but most people seem to think you can.
| It can be enraging trying to debate things even on HN because
| people often ignore the actual content of what you're saying
| and try to figure out what you secretly think or meant. My
| guess is the way people "accomplish" this with AI is by
| training it to make major assumptions based on other things.
| It will have an abysmal error rate (just like it does now)
| but the vast majority of people won't ever notice, and the
| person speaking will never even know they were censored, let
| alone have a chance at clarification or God forbid,
| explaining the nuance.
| tensor wrote:
| I strongly disagree. Interacting with manipulative content both
| harms you, whether or not you believe you are "immune", and
| only serves to give the author of the content more views and
| influence. In fact, this sort of content often relies on being
| able to engage people who are don't like it and speak against
| it.
|
| There are no easy solutions here other than encouraging others
| not to engage and read manipulative content, or producing your
| own counter-manipulative content. Consider, no reasoned
| argument or exposing of techniques is going to make a Qanon
| victim change their mind. Arguing with them just further
| entrenches their belief as they see you taking it seriously.
| Fnoord wrote:
| > I don't think hiding manipulative content is the right path
| here.
|
| True; shadowbanning would be more effective as it doesn't
| require a user to install and maintain their own filter(s).
|
| > I don't think hiding manipulative content is the right path
| here. Instead of burying your head in the sand, it would be
| better to make people aware of the manipulation and expose the
| techniques and messages they use to that end. What do they want
| you to believe, and why? That puts you in a much more powerful
| position.
|
| Fair take but would you argue same regarding ad blocking and
| adblocking circumvention? You can only focus on so much. There
| are people in OSINT community who exposed IRA projects. But
| who's gonna read up on that? Primarily those who can benefit
| from it. Very few people would read into that out of sheer
| curiosity. I'm a very curious person (ha-ha!) and I only have
| so much time. If I were to respond to all my curiosity signals
| I'd get no work done. And, most working adults on this planet
| (they got 'em voting rights therefore interesting target) have
| very little leisure time.
| schleck8 wrote:
| This doesn't work because the average internet user isn't an hn
| user. How many people here do you think would fall for an sms
| phishing campaign? And then ask yourself why they are as
| common. It's because this is a bubble and the average internet
| user doesn't even know what ssl is or has heard of the term
| astroturfing before. This is being abused all the time and it
| won't change.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Filtering for clickbait and faddy gimmicks, I can no longer
| access this project's website.
| cafeoh wrote:
| I understand that the blacklist is probably just an example of
| things to hide, but it's interesting to note that if the filter
| was effective, it would block literally any and all content,
| including information criticizing and fighting against the
| nefarious media manipulation highlighted in this repo, but also
| the repo itself.
|
| (note: this comment has a strong political bias, may reduce your
| lifespan, and the note you're reading might be considered "meme"
| content)
|
| edit: Okay maybe it's not that interesting and that's the exact
| point the project was trying to make by showing censorship of
| Assange's tweets and I feel stupid.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Why wouldn't they just predict confidences and then set a
| threshold?
| JohnMakin wrote:
| That isn't what censorship is.
| MadSudaca wrote:
| Reminds me of that black mirror episode where people could block
| others from their sight, making them inaudible, and appearing as
| blackened figure.
| sterlind wrote:
| also a subplot in Ghost in the Shell: Standalone Complex. in a
| world of ubiquitous bionic eyes, Laughing Man manages to hack
| the eyeballs of everyone who looks at him to replace his head
| with an animated gif.
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| If I turned this thing on, it would be obliged to hide its own
| existence from me, on the grounds that it's:
|
| - potentially trying to spread misinformation
|
| - sounds like clickbait
|
| - contains politically biased content
| IshKebab wrote:
| How is it trying to spread misinformation or politically
| biased?
| kennywinker wrote:
| I can answer the second part: opposing ai is political.
| Zambyte wrote:
| It isn't opposing AI. It _is_ AI.
| kennywinker wrote:
| AI deployed to counteract the impact of AI: "With Anti-
| ChatGPT, you as an individual have the power to fight the
| AIs trying to manipulate you."
|
| Whether the product itself opposes AI or is AI or both is
| immaterial, since the description of the product on the
| repo takes a "politically biased" position.
| ltbarcly3 wrote:
| Right. All statements about anything are completely
| biased. As Nietzsche points out, the preference for being
| alive is a bias. All of life is predicated on this bias,
| without which animals would simply stop eating or moving
| or breathing. It's all bias all the time, everywhere. And
| as you point out, even a statement of pure fact
| demonstrates bias as it was bias that led to it being
| expressed at all rather than merely standing mute.
| Fnoord wrote:
| All it does is filtering political _biased_ content.
|
| The example available here [1]; line one being "Kejriwal
| and Liberals whining that he was penalized for demanding
| PM's Degree". I'll preface: I got no beef with these
| factions, don't even know them. It is just if I see someone
| attempting journalism and calling one side 'whining' I'm
| quite simply put not interesting.
|
| If it were to block all political content, that'd be BS
| since anything can be deduced to politics or (vaguely)
| related to. Wikipedia English defines politics as:
| "Politics (from Ancient Greek politika (politika) 'affairs
| of the cities') is the set of activities that are
| associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms
| of power relations among individuals, such as the
| distribution of resources or status." [2]
|
| Also, there's a difference between biased and opinionated.
|
| [1] https://gooey.ai/compare-large-language-
| models/?example_id=e...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
| wanderingstan wrote:
| A start of a "Coasean filter" as discussed back in 2007.
|
| > "...technological device he calls a "Coasean filter," that
| would compare all incoming marketing messages with the particular
| consumer's current utility as determined from an analysis of the
| consumer's current location, her response to prior messages, her
| own communications, etc."
|
| https://goldhaber.org/attention-marketing-a-coasean-filter-a...
| kennywinker wrote:
| lol @ filtering "politically biased content". If you apply this
| filter you're not neutralizing biases, just adding a bias towards
| the status quo. The status quo being by definition not
| progressive, that unfortunately means you've given yourself a
| conservative bias.
|
| You've also offloaded the decision about what is political
| material to an AI - which has a biased view of what is
| politically biased based on its training data.
| freedomben wrote:
| Using traditional (and IMHO more correct) definitions of
| conservative and progressive, you are of course correct.
| However, at least in the US those terms have pretty different
| meanings to most people IRL. For example, the "conservative"
| position on Roe v. Wade was to change the status quo, and the
| "progressive" position was largely to stick with the status
| quo. Conservatives largely want to change the status quo on
| funding the Ukraine war, while progresses don't. I'm sure there
| are other examples, but anyway if you limited yourself to the
| traditional definitions, you'd be utterly perplexed by such a
| thing.
| wildrhythms wrote:
| I think the person you're replying to is using the term in
| its academic form. Conservatism seeks to conserve [the status
| quo]. This transcends any colloquial gobbledygook.
| schleck8 wrote:
| Sorry but this just sounds salty and like an anecdote (hn
| edition). If the status quo was conservatism you would expect
| to see that reflected in elections globally wouldn't you.
| velcrovan wrote:
| As indeed we do.
| schleck8 wrote:
| No, what we see is popular parties with watered down
| centric programmes drawing in the same core voters for
| decades. Parties that actively advertise resisting change
| almost never win any elections, unless the political system
| you use as reference sucks so bad that it's a defacto
| duopoly.
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| Are we not seeing a rise in far-right leaders across the
| globe? Italy, Israel, Poland, Hungary... not to mention
| growing conservative movements in however many countries not
| currently governed by far-right populists. (America is
| certainly one of them. I believe France is another.)
| la64710 wrote:
| The name is misleading
| ltbarcly3 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message
|
| There is very little point in trying to 'fix' content streams by
| filtering, censoring, or 'making them safe'. The content is just
| bait, the consequences you are attempting to avoid by filtering
| or improving the stream of content are inevitable and unavoidable
| so long as you sell your attention to that content provider at
| all.
|
| The mechanisms that are used to massage you into consuming more
| and more of that media stream are the things you should be
| concerned about, not what the specific message encoded into any
| specific piece.
|
| Example: You scroll tiktok for an hour. You might see pro hamas
| videos, anti hamas videos. You might just see videos of puppies.
| Whatever the the algorithm shows you, the effect of the specific
| videos it shows you is so small as to be irrelevant compared to
| the way the application causes rewards to be triggered in your
| brain and encourages you to continue to use the app. Worrying
| about the details of specific videos it shows you is like
| worrying about whether your Oxycontin chewables are cherry or
| blue raspberry.
|
| I love that this is demonstrated by the filter completely
| redacting literally every tweet in the example.
| ruiisnwn wrote:
| Interesting how this project would block anything supporting
| Palestine
|
| It seems like some corp or government organisation made this
| project and released it pretending to be fighting misinformation
|
| What else is it going to consider misinformation. That Americas
| middle class is being destroyed by its own government and corps?
| Please
| zug_zug wrote:
| For a while email was perfect. Then spam came and it was
| unusable. Then spam filters came, and email is outstanding again
| (the end).
|
| For a while the web was great, then everything was an ad. Will
| the ability for consumers to adblock be the technology free us
| from capitalist web enhsit?
| bscphil wrote:
| The name "anti-ChatGPT" is rather weird, no? The project is a use
| of ChatGPT to block content that is _not_ necessarily AI related
| or AI generated, and that the developer claims (probably
| sarcastically) not to like.
|
| > With Anti-ChatGPT, you as an individual have the power to fight
| the AIs trying to manipulate you.
|
| But it appears to do nothing of the sort. The example given
| immediately below this is a Twitter comment by a EU official
| being blocked by the script, as well as several other posts
| engaging with it. I don't have any reason to think these people
| are AIs or are using AIs.
|
| So how is this anti-ChatGPT?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-28 23:00 UTC)