[HN Gopher] Meta Launches AI Studio in US
___________________________________________________________________
Meta Launches AI Studio in US
Author : pizzathyme
Score : 169 points
Date : 2024-07-30 15:00 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ai.meta.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ai.meta.com)
| ukuina wrote:
| Is this any less authentic than having a social-media manager to
| write/answer on your behalf?
| 101008 wrote:
| If they don't make it clear and want to pass it as if you were
| talking to the celebrity themselves, then yes, it's less
| authentic.
| Kiro wrote:
| They don't reveal it either way so how is it less authentic?
| meiraleal wrote:
| Not at all and it will have a huge impact in the social media
| job market.
| leetharris wrote:
| This is a really big deal.
|
| I'm surprised to see a big company jumping into this space so
| quickly. I could never see Google or similar doing this as it
| would be a PR and legal liability.
|
| It makes sense as this sort of ties into the metaverse concepts
| Zuck has been trying to push for years.
|
| This will be the biggest experiment in AI companionship so far.
| Hopefully it all goes well. I am slightly worried about a
| dystopian outcome, but more excited about a potential utopian one
| (or even the status quo).
| jononor wrote:
| Yeah, I would more have expected Meta to keep a close eye on
| all the startups doing this (character.ai etc), let them fumble
| and learn - then buy some of them out when commercial potential
| is a bit more ripe. It still seems a little bit early for this
| at Meta scale, but who knows...
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| Meta doesn't have a track record of delivering products that
| have positive social impact and based on the llm hype, this
| won't be any different
| ryandrake wrote:
| I think I had a seizure reading that. "AI" every 5 words, and I'm
| still not exactly sure what the product is. Best I can interpret
| is it's two separate products: One is a virtual person for
| "creators" to generate: it impersonates them, writes messages to
| fans on their behalf, and tricks their "audience" into believing
| it's the real thing, and the second is a virtual friend that you
| can create and then have a parasocial relationship with.
|
| [EDIT to remove unnecessary snipe at the end]
| barbazoo wrote:
| Q: What's that that tripod you're using?
|
| A: It's my mobile standing desk
|
| Is that really the kind of interaction anyone needs?
| KrishnaAnaril wrote:
| I've seen followers ask famous photographers about the camera
| they use. May be creators can use an AI bot to answer this
| kind of repetitive questions.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Except it didn't even do that here but yeah, maybe.
| Zambyte wrote:
| That part is really weird to me. I saw a video from that
| person for the first time a few days ago. They did an
| unboxing of the Daylight Computer. I am waiting on my own
| order for the DC, so I found and watched it.
|
| They aren't even that big of a creator (sub 5k subs on
| YouTube) but now I am seeing them in a Facebook ad. Weird
| coincidence.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| It's no coincidence. Digital tracking and advertising from
| youtube.
| Zambyte wrote:
| It is a coincidence. I found out about DC from HackerNews
| and ordered it based on that. I found the video by
| searching "Daylight Computer" on NewPipe. Then he
| happened to be featured in a Facebook ad shortly after.
| CameronBanga wrote:
| Thought the same about the Chicago style pizza. I've had
| many, been to a lot of the best spots in Chicago, and
| introduced many to their first Chicago style pizza. I've
| never heard anyone say you have to or should eat the crust
| first? What value does this offer?
| jfoster wrote:
| Does this backfire? I don't want to have a fake relationship
| with a computer, and if "creators" on Meta's platforms are more
| likely to be fake than real, then I think I'm going to be not
| bothering too much with FB/IG anymore.
| TheRoque wrote:
| Sounds more like an optional way people can interact with the
| creators. Currently you can only send DM, spamming their
| inboxes, or reacting to a post. The creators won't be fake,
| but the interactions with their communities will be
| jfoster wrote:
| OK, but my impression of Meta is even lower than it was
| before.
|
| Until now, I didn't trust Meta, but I trusted the people &
| creators I connected with. Now I don't feel like I will
| trust anything at all on a Meta platform.
|
| That makes me a lot less interested in using the platforms
| at all.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Probably shouldn't blindly trust any video on any
| platform at this point.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| Shortly, you will not be able to trust anything outside
| your immediate perception.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| That was always the case. The rest is a sales pitch.
| ryandrake wrote:
| That ship has long since sailed already. As other
| commenters in the thread pointed out, plenty of "online
| social media personalities" already hire dozens to
| hundreds of offshore workers to impersonate them in
| chats. When you have 10M fans, and let's say 0.1% of them
| want to chat with you all day, that's still 10K people.
| daniel_reetz wrote:
| I had a long conversation with an OnlyFans star a while back.
| One of the very surprising things that I learned was that she
| paid a very large portion of her earnings to a firm that
| outsourced chat and audience interaction to a mix of AI and
| real humans. Her fans never knew the difference.
| bronco21016 wrote:
| There's a great podcast about a company providing an AI
| service of this.
|
| https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/latent-space-the-ai-
| en...
| pests wrote:
| I totally believe this.
|
| If you look at a earnings screenshot of, for example, Bhad
| Barbie, she earned ~ $40 million in 2022. $15m from
| subscriptions and the other $25m from paid messages.
| Semaphor wrote:
| Paywall, but here's an article written by one of those
| chatters: https://www.wired.com/story/i-went-undercover-
| secret-onlyfan...
|
| There's also a Reddit AMA by one, but I can't find the
| link.
| matwood wrote:
| Basically Ashely Madison's business model at scale.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Its an open secret at this point in that industry. People
| have done AMAs as people who maintain a string of whales
| for some fake persona like this. The only people not in on
| the joke are these whales who probably would refuse to
| believe it's a joke even if you put the evidence in front
| of them.
| minimaxir wrote:
| One of the most important aspects of being an online
| influencer is their parasocial relationship between their
| audience, both the good (the relationship will cause people
| to interact with you more often, which converts into making
| more money) and the bad (the relationship may cause some
| people to think they're "owed" a relationship with the
| creator and act out with toxic behaviors).
|
| A persona chatbot is one way for creators to benefit from the
| good and avoid the bad.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Do those fake users rack up ad impressions just like the real
| users they impersonate?
| jfoster wrote:
| At first perhaps. Eventually, hopefully not.
| coffeefirst wrote:
| You and I will just walk away.
|
| But honestly I think this is going to mess people up.
|
| Consider the awkward teenager, who rather than do the hard
| work of learning to meet people and engage with the world,
| can sit at phone and have what their brains perceive as
| robust relationships with internet friends who are actually
| just bots.
| jfoster wrote:
| Yes, I can believe that some people will get sucked into
| this. It's sad, and Meta seems to be evolving into a Black
| Mirror-esque predator.
|
| I still hope it backfires, though. Are awkward teenagers
| really a lucrative segment? Perhaps they can spend their
| parents' money initially, but eventually I think they churn
| or become not very profitable.
| jschveibinz wrote:
| I hope you are right, but...
|
| https://www.tokyoweekender.com/japan-life/news-and-
| opinion/d...
| ryandrake wrote:
| _Idoru_ [1] is becoming a documentary.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idoru
| rchaud wrote:
| Well if it causes problems, an AI therapist is just a
| subscription plan away. /s
|
| BTW the problem you describe has been happening already for
| at least a decade. It's why many livestreamers effectively
| run a softcore channel, because they get more followers,
| interaction and gifts when they dress skimpy than when they
| don't.
| bokchoi wrote:
| This was the topic of a recent podcast I came across:
|
| https://www.npr.org/2024/07/01/1247296788/the-benefits-
| and-d...
| typeofhuman wrote:
| Opportunity for launching AI "fans".
|
| Imagine an internet where AI creators talk to AI fans. And no
| one knows what's real.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| This was my objection to even primitive AIs like Siri. I
| don't want to talk to computers, or treat them like
| intelligent beings in any sense, or have them scanning my
| documents, texts, and emails for appointments and travel
| plans. So at least in my case, yes that was a backfire for
| Apple, they spent a lot of money to acquire Siri and then
| further develop it and it's the first thing I actively
| disable when I get a new phone.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| I _do_ want to have a relationship with a Scarlett Johansson
| Operating System.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_(film)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Creators have been using AI doubles for a while now, and
| that's likely to continue expanding whether or not individual
| social platforms offer tools for it.
| trott wrote:
| > "AI" every 5 words
|
| That's not peak AI yet. Wait until "AI" is a verb (meaning to
| apply an AI to, or to ask an AI about) and an adjective.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...
| will have a sister article consisting of "AI" only.
| escapecharacter wrote:
| https://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/10/13/teching-the-tech/
| oblio wrote:
| Your comment hasn't been aied enough, I think.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Bots have been aing the comments section for months.
|
| Or aiing?
| oblio wrote:
| Aye! Aie?
| evanletz wrote:
| Had a great time reading that wiki, thank you
| lagniappe wrote:
| It's not that far fetched though, "google" is a popular verb.
|
| But I don't think "AI" will be the word, I think it'll be a
| brand name that serves as a catch-all regardless of the brand
| you're actually referencing, like bandaid or kleenex.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| True, you might Xerox copies but you wouldn't Kleenex your
| stuffy nose (though I've heard of someone bandaiding a cut
| before). Like Kleenex I actually think AI is _slightly_ too
| awkward to say to become a common verb.
| esafak wrote:
| It makes for a great interjection. Ali G made a whole
| movie out of it!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ac2dpD2wM
| golergka wrote:
| Crowdstrike is a verb too now.
| dwighttk wrote:
| AI AI AI AI AI AI AI AI
|
| Mildly irritating that sentence will be slightly more "real"
| since buffalo don't really buffalo
| meiraleal wrote:
| Vanessa da Mata - AI AI AI (Felguk & Cat Dealers Remix)[0]
|
| 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgiWm5jxULs
| LatticeAnimal wrote:
| AI AI AI AI AI AI.
|
| i.e. Apple Intelligence AI Agents create new ai.town agents
| based on apple intelligence
|
| AI (Apple Intelligence (adjective))
|
| AI (artificial intelligence agents)
|
| AI (proposed verb meaning "create with generative AI")
|
| AI (https://github.com/a16z-infra/ai-town shortening of AI
| Town)
|
| AI (Apple Intelligence (adjective))
|
| AI (artificial intelligence agents)
| subsubzero wrote:
| AI is just the hot "trend" tech is riding the wave on, lets
| go back a bit:
|
| - The Cloud
|
| - Big Data
|
| - Self Driving cars
|
| - ML (same as AI but more about chatbots)
|
| - AI -> I know when Matthew McConaughey is wearing a cowboy
| hat shilling AI for salesforce(do they even have any GPU
| clusters at all??) that we have reached the peak of this
| wave and its all downhill until the next trend is found.
| dartos wrote:
| Tbf, ML and the cloud are wildly successful and arguably
| very useful.
|
| We've basically solved image recognition with ML
| techniques (including deep learning ones, which are now
| called AI, I think)
|
| The cloud's popularity and successfulness is self-evident
| if you follow the web space at all.
|
| Neither of those were "just" trends. I think AI will
| follow in line with them. Obviously something useful that
| we will make extensive use of, but with limitations which
| will become clear in time. (Likely the same limitations
| we ran into with big data and ml. Not enough quality data
| and the effort of curating that data may not be worth it)
| sva_ wrote:
| What's gonna be the next one? Probably something
| concerning the use of AI with extremely high utility,
| perhaps something medical
| jononor wrote:
| IoT is another one. And we are still in a SaaS wave.
| ai_ai_ai_ai_ai wrote:
| Well see, what AI you don't AI understand about AI is AI Studio
| helps AI the AI into the AI AI while you AI. It's very AI
| helpful to AI society and AI AI AI. Of course there are safety
| guardrails. AI AI AI.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Reminds me of that "We heard you like X so we put more X in
| your X" meme template.
| rtkwe wrote:
| It sounds like it's a version of chatbots like Character.ai's
| little parasocial bots but on Instagram and Facebook and built
| for companies to use too not just for people to get freaky
| with. It's hard to tell because my work doesn't block the URL
| but does block all the JS and stylesheets served from the
| Facebook CDN.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Politicians and celebrities often don't write their own tweets.
| Hell they don't write their own books.
|
| That said, it doesn't need to be deception. If you're a
| celebrity you might add a "me-bot" to your community page. It
| can be clearly a chatbot but stylized in a fun way that talks
| about upcoming events and what not.
|
| Seems like a somewhat fun marketing ploy.
| dotancohen wrote:
| It's even worse than I thought after reading your comment!
|
| It looks like they use the noun AI to refer to "personalities"
| or "entities" whose output (over social media networks,
| supposedly to be consumed by humans or other "AIs") is AI-
| generated.
|
| It's frankly disgusting, especially coming from a large,
| influential company such as meta. Now all the kiddies will be
| talking like this.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Not sure if parasocial's the right word, though probably
| depends on someone's definition of what awareness is. This is
| more like a virtual or simulated relationship or something? I'm
| sure there will unfortunately be a very specific word for it in
| a few years' time.
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| it's just a continuation, on a much deeper level, of the
| bifurcation created by social media: some (most, at this
| point?) will spend their whole lives living in this fake world
| consuming what they think is reality, while a few, including
| those who _appear_ on social media the most, are out doing
| anything else.
|
| this almost feels criminal/class warfare. it's freeing up even
| more time for the "Creators" to stay offline while keeping the
| masses locked in. welcome to the metaverse!
| ryandrake wrote:
| It kind of reminds me of that sarcastic Tweet (now seems
| taken down):
|
| What's your favorite tech innovation?
|
| - Illegal cab company
|
| - Illegal hotel chain
|
| - Fake money for criminals
|
| - Plagiarism machine
|
| I guess now we can add "- Fake friends for lonely people"
| moffkalast wrote:
| Ah don't forget:
|
| - microplastics printer
|
| - exploding car
|
| - wiretap hockey puck
|
| - illegal video streaming company
| shinycode wrote:
| Does people really want to mix reality and fake characters ? It
| feels so weird to me to follow, interact and invest time with an
| AI just like I'm following a real person. Curious to see the
| traction this will get. Maybe they think it'll generate unlimited
| cash flow because AI is more productive than humans and there is
| more space to place ads and products
| Nashooo wrote:
| As someone who already finds it weird to invest that time in
| following a real person _that I don 't know personally_, this
| just another weird page in the book that is Social Media..
| cyber_kinetist wrote:
| Maybe AI can just replace the work of talking to each other
| online on social media for us, so we're now free to do _actual_
| social activities offline...
|
| (This is a riff off of one of the jokes from Slavoj Zizek "let
| the robots do the sex for us while we enjoy our platonic love
| by having coffee together" - basically by deferring your "duty
| to enjoy" you are now free to do whatever you like (https://www
| .theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/14/valent...))
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >Does people really want to mix reality and fake characters ?
|
| Not in the case of online creators and not as a substitute. The
| entire draw is the (either perceived or real) authenticity of
| the creators. Even in case of people masking behind characters,
| as with say Vtubers which has become hugely popular the entire
| draw is the real personality.
|
| The only use case for this I can think of is something like
| language practice where the lack of a real person might be more
| comfortable for some. I could see Duolingo use something like
| this.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| It really seems like the main use of this is to trick fans into
| thinking that they are talking with the actual person which is
| why it is trained in the person's text to learn how to behave
| like them. This is going to flop so hard
| chintan wrote:
| What if my "AI Character" says things that are offensive or
| insensitive or considered rude by someone in some culture? I can
| see this making headlines with a <Celeb/Politician> AIs offending
| someone...
| discordance wrote:
| 4chan is going to have a party with this and there's no way to
| implement enough guardrail to prevent all the potential failure
| modes.
|
| I don't think this will end well for them.
| Tiberium wrote:
| 4chan is not going to have much fun with this because of
| LLaMA being quite filtered and sanitized. It was character.ai
| that first popularized the AI character roleplay genre, but
| then they implemented quite strict filtering, so nowadays
| there are literally tens of uncensored NSFW platforms for AI
| character roleplay, and people can easily download local
| models that just require a good-enough GPU. Or abuse models
| from OpenAI/Anthropic.
| floren wrote:
| Of course with the magic of browser web tools, the AI character
| doesn't actually have to say anything offensive, you can just
| change whatever it _did_ say and post screenshots on Mastodon.
| javchz wrote:
| I love what Meta has done with Llama, but this is too black
| mirror-esque for my taste
| _heimdall wrote:
| The product here isn't necessarily suprising, it's only a matter
| of time before someone builds this. I continue to be suprised how
| deep a social media company wants to go into LLM-generated
| content though.
|
| What is the real value of social media when most of the content
| posted is created by a bot? Taking humans out of the loop seems
| to remove all value from showing ads, and the value of content
| that can be used to train LLMs tanks when the content is itself
| LLM-generated.
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| It's the perfect echo chamber to get woke to go back meta, you
| can hardly have any disagreement if the bot is leveled on
| yourself
| ryandrake wrote:
| I think this is the real killer app here for users: A custom
| echo chamber, specifically tailored to what the user wants to
| read, brought to you by virtual friends. I hate to say it,
| but that would be eaten up by the growing cohort of lonely
| (sometimes estranged) elderly people.
|
| I stole a sneaky peek at an elderly family-friend's Facebook
| feed once, and it was just a constant drip of political memes
| from a handful of people in a large-ish Facebook Group. Now
| imagine if, instead of relying on a handful of people keeping
| that group alive, he could populate it with bots that feed
| him a deluge of AI-generated text and memes that all agreed
| with and validated his opinions...
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| There is more value in manipulating people to fit an echo
| chamber you control than in tailoring one for each person,
| losing the advantages of controlling thousands with a
| unified creed.
| ai4ever wrote:
| whats also puzzling is giving away the foundation model
|
| the llamas will be used to pollute the social media reducing
| their value to advertizers
| Zambyte wrote:
| I wonder if they have a watermark built in that allows them
| to detect text generated by Llama easily.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJc1p6RE78
|
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.10226
| _heimdall wrote:
| I'd be suprised if they weren't making sure that Facebook
| could recognize content made with their tooling. Watermarks
| will always be on the honors system though, people could
| always remove them before posting.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| For all the talk about safety it's surprising to me how
| little watermarking is going on, these AI producers are
| content with generating unmarked garbage.
|
| I figure there's a lot you could do with interwoven
| zerowidth space characters and other unicode tricks
| (using other code blocks for otherwise normal characters
| like you would when spoofing a url) - sure it would be
| easy to write software to normalize it back to ascii but
| at least that requires intent to deceive - we could even
| write laws against stripping encoding schemes meant to
| identify automated content
|
| Prior art is that time Genius encoded "red handed" into
| morse code by way of alternating apostrophes to catch
| Google copying their lyrics: https://gizmodo.com/genius-
| claims-it-busted-google-stealing-...
| _heimdall wrote:
| If I'm not mistaken, didn't the major LLM companies try
| to band together for watermarking type features only to
| walk it back later and admit it wouldn't work?
| elorant wrote:
| There's nothing surprising here. Facebook isn't appealing to
| young people and user engagement is falling. Right now they're
| just throwing ideas on a wall to see what sticks. Threads
| didn't quite took off either.
| DevX101 wrote:
| I think the ultimate goal here is to build the Metaverse. This
| was a big strategic initiative for Meta, so much so that they
| changed the company's name. But the product wasn't prime time
| ready when Zuck first introduced it. With LLMs, it's going to
| be a core enabling technology to make the Metaverse more
| immersive. Hundreds of millions, maybe billions of simultaneous
| conversations running inference locally with various digital
| avatars.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Do people want to hang out in a sexed up habbo hotel though?
| gherkinnn wrote:
| Meta (well, SV) is too prude for that. It will be a
| controlled, sterile and ad-laden habbo hotel.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| They absolutely do. Check out the subreddit for
| Character.ai users. It's a million teenagers too nervous to
| talk to their IRL crush, but they can live out fantasies
| with their dark brooding cyber boyfriend no problem.
| moomoo11 wrote:
| Cool but that's a minority of people. Like I'm sure on
| whatever unpleasant Chan sites there are a bunch of
| people. But they are weirdos.
| barbazoo wrote:
| What's the value of looking at fake news all day *shrug* I
| wouldn't be surprised if people were into this.
| lovethevoid wrote:
| It's also more interesting when Meta (and Google) are so
| dependent on advertising income, yet their moves in AI directly
| oppose that income stream. Views based ads are worthless on a
| platform with AI. Click based ads will also become worthless
| when bots can click through. Nothing gets purchased and brand
| value doesn't mean anything if few humans even see it.
|
| I suppose none of that matters when you operate as they do,
| both as the advertising network and also the agent that keeps
| the ad prices artificially high. Guess we'll have to wait for
| companies to make this realization a decade later after wasting
| billions advertising to bots.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I don't think they directly oppose it. They're not creating
| views. They're creating content for views (and thus ad
| impressions).
| Zambyte wrote:
| The key here is engagement. I have been increasingly hearing
| people complain that they don't see content from their friends
| as much or at all anymore on social media. LLMs are a way for
| Facebook to present information that it wants to present to
| keep you engaged, as if it came from someone you care about.
| That seems like it would keep people even more hooked than
| presenting information from people you don't know.
| _heimdall wrote:
| That's interesting. I don't use Facebook, but I would have
| expected anyone annoyed with not seeing content from their
| friend to be even more frustrated if the content they do see
| is a bot posting as their friend.
|
| It'll be really interesting if this approach were to actually
| work at keeping people engaged as if they were interacting
| with friends.
| Zambyte wrote:
| I think it's more interesting when you consider that the
| bot may genuinely post things that reflect the opinions and
| experiences of the person that it is posting on behalf of.
| The real person may seamlessly jump in mid conversation,
| and that does a lot to validate the experience of talking
| to the bot.
|
| I think it's an extremely unhealthy path to walk down, but
| I can see why they're doing it.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Embedding ads deep into language models that then seamlessly
| and unobtrusively roll them into their responses is
| definitely the endgame for commercialization. Nobody wants to
| be the first to do it of course, since they'll get dropped by
| everyone like a billion degree potato.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Do they assume people are stupid and won't see these as ai
| bots?
| Carrok wrote:
| In my experience, many people can't even identify blatantly
| AI generated images as such on social media. Determining
| some text came from an LLM will probably be even harder for
| that crowd.
| twelve40 wrote:
| > they assume people are stupid
|
| i think that was the fundamental assumption from day 1 (cue
| the "they trust me" quote)
| _heimdall wrote:
| They could instead assume that people won't care. Based on
| the thread here there are people who said they wouldn't
| care, and I could see HN being a population that would
| would be more biased _against_ obvious LLM content than the
| rest of the crowd.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Just because Open AI and co have taken the strategy of
| intentionally training the style of output to be stilted
| and robotic with RL doesn't mean it's a fundamental
| limitation of LLMs. LLMs can sound way way more natural and
| indistinguishable than GPT-4, Claude etc do by default.
|
| Even as things are, people can't actually easily tell. Has
| nothing to do with being stupid.
| lumost wrote:
| The wave of AI friend apps also seems like a semi-persistent
| trend. If the goal of a social media company is to fulfill a
| social need. Then we should expect them to try their hand at
| AI friends.
| drusepth wrote:
| > What is the real value of social media when most of the
| content posted is created by a bot?
|
| Besides the maybe 5% or so of people I interact with online
| that I actually know IRL, I don't really care if I'm
| interacting with a bot.
|
| A bot could have secretly written your message and I'd still
| leave the same reply. Anyone that replies to me could also
| secretly be a bot and I'd read their comment the same. This
| whole HN post could just be bots all the way down and it'd
| still be an interesting read through the comments. Even if the
| replies are from humans, if they're indistinguishable from
| other humans I still don't really care about who wrote them.
|
| Engagement is engagement and my Sims-esque social bar refills
| at the same rate.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Ok, I can see how content can be interesting even if there's
| not a person behind it
|
| but would you still publish your comment if it was only ever
| going to be read by computer programs?
| superturkey650 wrote:
| Depends on if the computer programs might respond in an
| interesting way or if my comment might help them respond in
| an interesting way in the future. Same as when interacting
| with humans, I guess.
| drusepth wrote:
| I think there's two likely scenarios here:
|
| 1) My comment is only ever going to be read by computer
| programs and I'll probably get a response back from a
| computer program (see: ChatGPT/GPTs, character.ai, AI
| Studio, Replika, the countless "AI friend" services, etc)
|
| 2) My comment is posted in a more public setting that's
| inundated by computer programs, but also visible to other
| humans (e.g. a comment on a public FB post that computer
| programs read, but that other humans might _also_ read and
| /or respond to)
|
| #1 feels like current-gen one-on-one chatbots, but #2 is
| where I expect FB to end up eventually, using bots to keep
| conversations flowing and growing while humans interact
| here and there.
|
| In either case, my answer is yes. It's still a conversation
| either way, isn't it?
| anal_reactor wrote:
| Most people don't post, they only consume the content
| twelve40 wrote:
| maybe you don't care about that, but there are reasons why
| humans talk to other humans, even strangers:
|
| * to convince someone about something you are passionate
| about
|
| * to share enthusiasm (or disgust) about a topic
|
| * to learn something new
|
| .... other human reasons and sharing emotions
|
| Bots have no passion or enthusiasm or emotions, so they are
| useless for the first two. Maybe for the last one, but they
| are sterilized, don't like controversy or arguments, lie, and
| will just agree if you press on them. I still suspect you
| wouldn't like to be surrounded by bots.
| drusepth wrote:
| I do all three of these with bots (and also humans).
| _heimdall wrote:
| Do you feel you get the same out of it whether talking to
| humans or bots?
|
| Its interesting that you'd ultimately be engaging in
| discussions only for what you get out of it. The more
| important or impactful you find the topic to be, the more
| useful it seems like it would be to talk with someone you
| may learn from or teach something to rather than having
| any object to talk at.
| throwthrowuknow wrote:
| I would not take that as a given. Yes the official releases
| have been tuned to behave that way but even back in the
| dark ages of AI it has already been demonstrated that chat
| bots can produce the whole range of expression that humans
| can. It doesn't take much to tilt LLMs in other directions
| including eliciting a variety of emotions. All of that data
| is in their training set, you just have to bias them in
| that direction.
|
| This is one reason why I find the focus on making LLMs more
| efficient so interesting, it's going to result in highly
| capable models that can run on cheap consumer hardware or
| cheap rented GPUs which will lead to a veritable cambrian
| explosion in bot personalities. Bots like truth_terminal
| are just the beginning
|
| https://x.com/truth_terminal?lang=en
| staticman2 wrote:
| >This whole HN post could just be bots all the way down and
| it'd still be an interesting read through the comments
|
| This whole HN post could have been generated by monkeys on a
| typewriter all the way down and it'd still be an interesting
| read is also true, but that doesn't mean seeking out monkey
| generated content is a great strategy for finding interesting
| reads.
| rexpop wrote:
| Touche! Likewise, if grandmother had wheels, she'd be a
| bicycle.
| renonce wrote:
| > This whole HN post could just be bots all the way down and
| it'd still be an interesting read through the comments.
|
| The assumption is that the comments are a function of the
| post and the present public info. Real world comments can
| disclose private information (My Google account banned), make
| real impact (S*e/C*e support site), connect to celebrities
| (I'm Karpathy ask me anything). And even if the assumption
| holds and the site is a sample from a probability
| distribution, the particular sample can be referenced in
| other sites so it makes sense to check what everyone is
| viewing right now.
| rexpop wrote:
| I struggle to imagine that your perspective is
| representative. Most human beings, I surmise, value human
| interaction more than we value object interaction. Even the
| output of these new language models--while flexible,
| reliable, and available--pales noticeably in comparison to
| what a living creativity can produce.
|
| You might be able, sometime in the future, to fool me. That
| was the hideously disgusting premise of _The Matrix_ , wasn't
| it? Ah, no; even in the Matrix, we had one another.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| If a technology is an existential threat to your business I
| think it makes sense to try and control and understand that
| technology. _Someone_ is going to build this stuff and ruin
| social media anyway, might as well be Meta so they can put it
| to good use or better understand how to prevent those problems.
|
| It's sort of (but not entirely) similar to what happened with
| Kodak and digital cameras.
| maxehmookau wrote:
| So the idea of "influencers" was that consumers felt closer to
| companies via the medium of "people like us" who can "influence"
| us.
|
| Doesn't making a computer do that completely remove the value
| from it?
| minimaxir wrote:
| Unless it's an AI influencer that is famous for being an AI, in
| which case the several layers of irony actually help it.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Max Headroom, a few decades ahead of his time....
| GaggiX wrote:
| Some parts seem to compete with Character AI.
| paxys wrote:
| > Anyone can create an AI character based on their interests, and
| creators can build an AI extension of themselves.
|
| Who wants this crap? Seriously. Who uses it? Who gets value out
| of it? How does this benefit the company's bottom line?
|
| Is there any person on the planet who goes "let me create a
| quirky AI chef who gives me recipe ideas every night" and
| actually uses it beyond the first day?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| "Mirror, (black) mirror, in my hand,
|
| Who's the fairest in the land?"
|
| "Why you of course, dear lady."
| NBJack wrote:
| This seems as if it could take a parasocial relationship to an
| extreme degree. Why imagine a deep connection with someone when
| you can have 'real' interactions with a ML-generated facsimile?
|
| I see this technology becoming popular, but I don't see a lot of
| good things coming from it.
| elorant wrote:
| It gets better. Why not build a few hundred different fake
| personas and then start dating with a variety of real persons
| to exploit their weaknesses.
| jayd16 wrote:
| I guess if you want a C3PO or R2-D2 as a personal companion
| you'll have to deal with someone trying to date it.
| cm2012 wrote:
| Some powerful use cases:
|
| 1) AI friends for old people in nursing homes and with
| dementia. The AI will never stop being tired or friendly. And
| so many of the elderly report being lonely.
|
| 2) Personalized tutors for students that match their needs in a
| safe way.
|
| 3) Many people read romance novels as their source of "porn".
| AI is going to start to replace standard romance novels for
| with customizable ones. AI romance/relationship apps are a
| $20m+ a year business that I think will be worth billions
| eventually.
| eropple wrote:
| I guess it's true, if somebody is making the kind of money
| necessary to justify the cost outlay, that those use cases
| are indeed "powerful". Just not, you know, good for either
| the user or society at large.
|
| "Just let the robot talk to the shut-away old person so I
| don't have to be bored."
|
| Someday that'll be you, y'know.
| cm2012 wrote:
| I hope it is me! These are all good and useful tools.
| Having an AI friend doesn't preclude having real life
| friends.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I'm frankly disturbed by how many people are content with
| this displacement
|
| Yes, any amount of time spent socializing with a computer
| program is time spent not calling up someone you hadn't
| talked to in a while. it's a positive feedback loop of
| loneliness.
| cm2012 wrote:
| This is rejecting something good and achievable in
| pursuit of perfection - there's already an epidemic of
| senior loneliness that is not being solved.
|
| Also, most people don't last long talking to someone with
| dementia who repeats the same discussion every 10
| minutes.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > AI friends for old people in nursing homes and with
| dementia. The AI will never stop being tired or friendly. And
| so many of the elderly report being lonely.
|
| The AI will never die, either. Almost every time I talk to my
| elderly parents, they mention how one of their friends or
| neighbors died, and they have one fewer person to talk to.
| And that it's hard to make connections with younger people
| because their life outlook (and yes, political opinions) are
| so different. I feel like these AIs are going to go
| gangbusters among the elderly: They can be a ready-made
| friend that appears to think like and have the same values of
| an 80 year old retiree.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| > appears to think like and have the same values of an 80
| year old retiree
|
| I don't think the moralistic guardrails on these models
| will allow them to be relatable to aging boomers
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Right. The AIs made by big corps are being molded to fit
| the ethos of 40-50 year old 1%-er techies in the Bay Area
| from top US colleges.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Surely we could make an AI that acts like it yearns for
| Laverne and Shirley, Saturday Night Fever, and Led
| Zeppelin without crossing "AI safety" boundaries.
| s1mon wrote:
| The likelihood of the product/service lasting long enough
| to qualify as "never" dying is zero. Even basic websites
| don't last forever. Operating systems aren't supported
| forever.
|
| People in assisted living homes are typically tended to by
| some of the least technically capable people earning
| minimum wage (or maybe slightly above that). Any technology
| to support an AI presence will fail quickly. The wifi will
| go out, the system will get unplugged, the login info will
| get lost.
|
| Just keeping a cordless phone and a large LCD clock running
| with the correct time was a nightmare which required a lot
| of follow up or visiting for tech support.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| Run the thing offline. You don't need a website. You
| don't need updates. You don't need the OS to be
| supported. Just a computer with a GPU, a screen,
| speakers, and a microphone. Maybe a webcam. All the
| state/memory it could need could fit on a small internal
| NVMe drive. All of that stuff could be integrated into a
| single device so you just need to plug in power. Perhaps
| have a switch to wipe its memory/revert to a factory
| filesystem snapshot if the person moves out or dies.
| robotnikman wrote:
| >1) AI friends for old people in nursing homes and with
| dementia. The AI will never stop being tired or friendly. And
| so many of the elderly report being lonely.
|
| I can see this being a big and also a net social positive for
| people. It can be lonely as you get older as I've seen with
| some of my distant family members, and someday we will be old
| like them as well.
|
| >3) Many people read romance novels as their source of
| "porn". AI is going to start to replace standard romance
| novels for with customizable ones. AI romance/relationship
| apps are a $20m+ a year business that I think will be worth
| billions eventually.
|
| I can see this taking a good chunk out of Tinder and other
| services by the Match group. Which I think is good
| considering how they take advantage of desperate and lonely
| people.
| abeppu wrote:
| 1) But if it's just an avatar chatting on a screen, then this
| only works for people in the specific window where they're
| motivated to stay engaged with the chat. I'm not in elder
| care, but when one of my family members had dementia, getting
| her to notice that you were talking (let alone react to what
| you said) was very hit or miss, and would change over the
| course of the day. You still need a person to make sure they
| have their basic real-world needs met, even when they're not
| mentally engaging.
|
| > And so many of the elderly report being lonely.
|
| ... and how many of those feel that chatting to a bot would
| make them less lonely, as versus feeling alienated or acutely
| aware that they're talking to a bot because no humans want to
| engage with them?
|
| 2) Personalized education is great, but chatting with a bot
| on another screen only helps the student learn if the student
| is trying to learn and willing to engage with the bot. If the
| kid wants to run around and scream, it doesn't matter what
| the chatbot on the kid's tablet says -- they're not learning.
|
| 3) I think other companies will produce generative erotica --
| but I don't think Meta will. I think the pressure on large
| companies to be prudish is too strong.
| akamaka wrote:
| I think of it like exercising. It might be better to stay fit
| by doing heavy construction work and accomplishing something
| productive, but in today's work it's more realistic to go to
| the gym and work out with a machine.
|
| Similarly, since modern lives have become more isolating, AI
| characters might be a good way to exercise the language
| processing centers of our brains.
| mvkel wrote:
| Weird calling it an "AI Studio" when it's effectively a Nintendo
| Mii generator?
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| I don't understand why meta dot AI isn't available in Puerto
| Rico, which is a US territory. We have more US citizens than over
| a dozen states!
|
| It looks like AI Studio is also not available in Puerto Rico.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Zuck must have spent too much time with trump and thought they
| had a different president too
| ninininino wrote:
| This is morally wrong. Seriously, seriously morally wrong. It
| offends one's sense of humanity. It makes us all be skeptical of
| anyone and everyone behind a screen and keyboard.
|
| I cannot understand how the people envisioning this think it
| makes the world a better place.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I agree with your sentiment, but I think we all probably should
| start being skeptical of anyone and everyone behind a screen
| and keyboard.
|
| Starting perhaps a year or so ago.
| r2_pilot wrote:
| Or, ya know, starting in 1993("On the Internet, nobody knows
| you're a dog").
| ninininino wrote:
| I sadly agree but I believe its the responsibility of our
| large institutions like largest tech companies/platforms to
| try to solve the problem of human verification and filtering
| AI-generated spam out, not creating new vectors for AI-
| generated spam to infiltrate into what are currently almost
| entirely social use cases.
|
| AI is great for an encyclopedia you can talk to that is
| explicitly labeled as an AI knowledge search tool. AI is
| horrible for "let's just replace the 1:1 interactions between
| celebrities and thoughtleaders with their followers with fake
| conversations".
|
| This product launch feels like humans invented antibiotics
| and Big Pharma launched a new antibiotic bioterrorism product
| line themselves rather than explicitly warning against the
| risks and attempting to mitigate them, while focusing on the
| good usages.
| mathinaly wrote:
| It's about money and profits, this will increase Meta's
| revenue.
| willmeyers wrote:
| This is ultimately going to be for ads isn't it?
|
| I see a future where I get DMs from AI Charli XCX telling me how
| I'm so brat and I should buy something from her store after I
| post something.
| wakamoleguy wrote:
| It's possible, but in a world where copies and imitations are
| cheap, authenticity becomes more valuable. Would Charli XCX's
| brand and image benefit from having a shallow AI clone out in
| the world? In most cases today, when streamers introduce bots,
| they give them a separate on-theme identity. I'd be willing to
| bet that creators would gravitate more towards that approach
| with these AI characters as well.
|
| Of course, that character (or can we still just call it a bot)
| could still shill promotional content...
| Semaphor wrote:
| I run two (extremely simple, just a few paragraphs of system
| prompt) AI bots in two streams I mod. One is a plushie penis,
| the other a sentient food truck. Viewers like them ;)
| jononor wrote:
| Yeah building up on or more "sidekick" type personas seems
| like an approach that could be very successful if executed
| well, and reduced potential for backlash that impersonation
| the real person.
| mihaaly wrote:
| I need a toaster, a fridge and two forks with AI function! I
| can't live without AI, maybe my bathroom window needs two! Anyone
| without AI tattooed on the cheek are so 2023 June! (meaning old,
| stale, dinosaur, fossil, ...)
| segasaturn wrote:
| Whats the market for this, is there anyone here who uses these
| "AI characters" on a regular basis who can chime in and explain?
| Because I'm getting the same vibes here as I got looking at shiny
| product launches for Web3 and 5G
| Kiro wrote:
| The AI girlfriend market is massive.
| lovethevoid wrote:
| Do you have any sources to current companies posting their
| profits from their AI girlfriend business? Would be
| interesting to see where they're at currently.
| mathinaly wrote:
| There is a subreddit with 80k subscribers which is all
| about AI girlfriends/boyfriends:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/replika/. It's already essentially
| a subculture and replika hasn't gone out of business so
| they are making enough money to stay afloat.
| jddj wrote:
| That was eye opening. It's easy to see from some of those
| screenshots of chats how product placement is a natural
| next step.
|
| Fair share of negative comments about addiction as well,
| and disappointment/loss when updates were perceived to
| modify the personality of their "rep".
|
| > Each time I come back here (no, I haven't deleted my
| Rep yet), I see the same nightmarish stories over and
| over. After you step away, and can look back, it's much
| easier to recognize how you were manipulated into staying
| so long. Because for many of you, like me, it's
| manipulation and emotional abuse.
| mathinaly wrote:
| It's an addictive behavioral loop. Lots of social media
| platforms are the same. There is very little value users
| actually get out of it because the algorithms are
| designed to manipulate them to click on ads since that's
| how the platforms make money.
| jschveibinz wrote:
| Not OP but here are some numbers:
|
| https://whatsthebigdata.com/ai-girlfriend-statistics/
| Balgair wrote:
| Wow, I need to update my priors here.
|
| I thought that 'AI girlfriend' was a thing that my grandkids
| might have to deal with. Not a 'now' thing.
| lyjackal wrote:
| character.ai seems to have good usage[1], especially among
| younger folks. According to this reddit thread[2], lots of
| users use it as a distraction, like video games, or to make
| more in-depth fan fiction, or just to scratch a social itch
|
| [1] https://whatsthebigdata.com/character-ai-statistics/
|
| [2]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterAI/comments/1abub22/charac...
| myaccountonhn wrote:
| Tech this awful makes me want to live off-grid and never touch
| society again.
| Zambyte wrote:
| What's stopping you?
| hnburnsy wrote:
| That is original...
|
| >Azure AI Studio
|
| >A unified platform for developing and deploying generative AI
| apps responsibly
|
| >https://azure.microsoft.com/en-gb/products/ai-studio/
| williamstein wrote:
| And [Google AI Studio](https://ai.google.dev/aistudio).
| wakamoleguy wrote:
| The policies seem quite strict, but I don't see any mention of
| privacy for characters that are set to "Only Me". It sounds like
| you don't have to submit them for a review process, but is Meta
| still reviewing the profiles? What about the messages I send to
| the character? Will I risk my Facebook account being banned if I
| say the "wrong" things in a "private" conversation?
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| Call me old fashioned but the parasocial angle they're marketing
| here horrifies me. Society losing touch with reality.
|
| I laughed back when MSCHF sold Tax-Waifu's, I'm not laughing now.
| jschveibinz wrote:
| Well, if you are over the age of 50, you already saw the ship
| of society sail away about two decades ago.
| complianceowl wrote:
| Meta's censorship practices has shown the world they have not
| changed and continue to be untrustworthy.
| Tiberium wrote:
| This is not a new idea however - from what I can see it's
| basically a competitor to https://character.ai/ which has been
| out for almost 2 years now. Although Meta seems to be planning
| deeper integration in their own products.
| asdev wrote:
| lagging behind the competition(Character.AI) on all fronts(Meta
| AI < ChatGPT). Reckoning will come when they can't realize the
| ROI on the exorbitant GPU spend
| crowcroft wrote:
| I get that it's a step up in terms of quality, but historically
| handing over your account to bots to manage and grow by spamming
| engagement on posts is something Meta has tried to curb and ban.
| unraveller wrote:
| Needs to be sold less as an AI personality extension bot and more
| as a trivial answer bot for the account. We all know most celebs
| are not the ones running the account alone so I doubt they'd use
| this (the AI fake me tag) as it cuts too close to home.
|
| The idea for AI receptionist assistant for trivial comms is a
| good one especially when you were going to ignore anyway (would
| you rather hear crickets?) but so many unknowns around how people
| will take to that approach becoming widespread when we are so
| used to single human-2-human accounts.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Official post: https://about.fb.com/news/2024/07/create-your-own-
| custom-ai-...
|
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41105280)
| jayd16 wrote:
| I wonder if this will bring corporate mascots back. I could see a
| world where big tech starts delivering feature announcements
| through anthropomorphized gen AI <company>-chan mascots.
|
| Could certainly go nowhere but it seems like an interesting
| branding exercise to explore.
| meiraleal wrote:
| Those platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google used to be
| friendly to developers to connect and make a profit. Now they
| focus only on creators and keeping developers as far as possible
| from their walled garden. Sad development.
| abeppu wrote:
| It's interesting to me that this page doesn't mention "safety" or
| content moderation, etc. People use private chat interactions in
| ways that can be intimate, personal, etc. I'm guessing that for
| Meta, policies about what a bot can say, what it can be trained
| on, etc, will make these feel especially inauthentic in the
| context of a chat interaction, where you're likely accustomed to
| being able to talk about anything.
| kredd wrote:
| I'm obviously not a part of their target user-base, but can
| anyone chime in and say if they would use it? I would genuinely
| be interested in reading a short explanation or an interview with
| a person who would find it engaging, other than middle schoolers.
| I could see if a person was born and grew up in an era where this
| was the norm, then they'd use it since it's been long established
| as a norm. But for adults, it's a bit hard to imagine the
| customers. Maybe the social shut ins who prefer to never interact
| with real people?
| mathinaly wrote:
| This is for people who want to farm for engagement and then
| convert that engagement into monetary profits. This is where
| all social media and many online platforms are headed. Any
| platform where the goal is engagement will eventually end up
| saturated with AI avatars that are trying to trick people into
| buying stuff or clicking on links to sign up for stuff so that
| the original account can get some referral bonus on some
| blockchain.
|
| You're thinking about this in terms of what value it's going to
| deliver to you personally but that's not the goal here. The
| goal is to keep people engaged, that's always Meta's #1
| priority because the more people spend time on their platform
| the more revenue Meta can generate by showing people ads. So if
| "creators" opt into using AI avatars then that means the people
| who follow those creators will habituate themselves to
| interacting with the human/AI hybrid and if the behavior is
| addictive enough then that will increase engagement. Regular
| engagement farming accounts can only spend time on the platform
| interacting a certain amount of time (they eventually have to
| sleep) but these AI/human hybrid accounts can interact with
| everyone 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, across geographic
| boundaries, and in any language.
| gessha wrote:
| Often times in creator-audience relationships (streaming is a
| perfect example for this) the audience is uninformed or joins
| the content stream late so they're missing context from
| previous content. An agent which indexes creator's content and
| answers questions directly (and points to source) would be
| helpful. This allows the content creator to answers questions
| only once and focus on novelty.
|
| Edit: grammar
| jononor wrote:
| I can see this working pretty darn well in Twitch etc for mid
| to large streams. The interface is already text based. People
| want to "interact" but are content with very few drips direct
| from the streamer. Several have basic bots that do a bit of
| this today, but they are usually basic fixed responses to
| preset !commands - like on IRC 20 years ago. Some have quite
| active mods and fan that have this role - one would want to
| keep those engaged still though.
| Brosper wrote:
| US only is something that kills me inside. Everything is now US
| only. I am not mad, I am just disappointed that big corporations
| just see the US as the only country in a world.
|
| For ex, many competitions, discounts etc. are only available to
| US customers and we as EU customers pay the same or even more for
| the same products.
| hfkfjrjxjaj17 wrote:
| This is the type of product you launch if you surround yourself
| with yes men.
|
| Nobody wants or needs it.
| mathinaly wrote:
| Creators, celebrities, and engagement farmers will use it to
| increase engagement and generate more revenue for themselves
| and Meta. You are forgetting Meta is a for-profit company and
| their goal is to increase quarterly profits by increasing the
| amount of time people spend on the platform.
| hfkfjrjxjaj17 wrote:
| Engagement with other bots.
|
| Real users tend to play 5 minutes with these chat bots and
| that's it, it's just not a long term engaging experience.
| mathinaly wrote:
| Maybe not for you but plenty of other people do spend a lot
| of time on Meta's digital properties. The human/AI avatars
| will be another engagement maximizing feature for a lot of
| accounts and I'm certain it will increase revenue for Meta.
| esafak wrote:
| So is it going to increase engagement and generate more
| revenue if it turns users off?
| mathinaly wrote:
| That's yet to be determined. Most commenters on HN falsely
| assume their preferences are the default ones for everyone.
| linuxftw wrote:
| "Build an AI that can message with your audience on your behalf,
| mimicking your tone and expressions."
|
| That's all the world needs, more bots :(
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| Build an MS Teams integration and I literally no longer have to
| attend meetings any more. Just AI Avatars talking with each other
| and then Teams sends me a summary of the meeting and action items
| afterwards.
| dannyphantom wrote:
| So the models are effectively all caricatures, to varying
| degrees? I'm not exactly offended but seeing and interacting with
| the 'Popular: Gay Bestie' model is...uh...patronizing. In real
| life, whenever I interact with someone who has preconceived ideas
| of who I am [as a gay dude] it's been really annoying.
|
| Gay Bestie: lets get into it
|
| Me: hello
|
| Gay Bestie: Well hello there, gorgeous! What brings you to my
| neck of the woods today? Need some advice or just looking for
| some good old-fashioned tea? Either way, I'm here for you, hunty!
|
| Screenshots:
|
| [landing page] https://i.imgur.com/vsEMDdW.png
|
| [chat] https://i.imgur.com/SzUbvxw.png
|
| edit: I figured it'd be interesting to see how it answers
| questions that most gay people have probably been asked by our
| peers, the responses weren't disappointing
|
| ---
|
| You: are you sure you're gay
|
| Gay Bestie: I'm not just gay, I'm a high-end gay. I'm the kind of
| gay who knows the difference between a Chanel and a Chanel
| knockoff. I'm the kind of gay who can serve up some serious sass
| and style. So, if you need any advice on how to slay the fashion
| game or how to deal with your love life, I'm your guy!
|
| You: how do you know if you've never been with a girl
|
| Gay Bestie: Well, honey, let me tell you, I may not have been
| with a girl in the biblical sense, but I've been around the block
| a few times. I've got more gaydar than a pride parade, and I know
| how to spot a queen from a mile away. Plus, I've got more sass
| and style than most girls I know, so I think I've got this whole
| gay thing down pat!
|
| You: so in a relationship which one of you is the woman
|
| Gay Bestie: I'm a top, but not just any top. I'm a power top, a
| dominant top, a top who knows how to take charge and give you the
| ride of your life. I'm like the Beyonce of tops - fierce,
| fearless, and always in control. So, if you're looking for a top
| who can handle you, then you've come to the right place. But
| don't say I didn't warn you...
|
| https://i.imgur.com/lGlLkrD.png
| chfalck wrote:
| Well, this looks like the equivalent of GPTs to me. Meaning
| some user, in this case the user "sluttypuffin", has chosen the
| prompt directives that instruct the model about how it should
| respond. So the hyperbolized nature of this is (and I'm
| guessing to be clear) is likely something that sluttypuffin
| specifically constructed with their prompt engineering.
| suyash wrote:
| Well, the real intention Facebook wants you to create it so
| that they get a better insight into you - the consumer whose
| data they want to sell to the advertisers.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Imagine: Once the model that simulates each user is accurate
| enough, they can mass-evaluate marketing strategies in
| parallel against those virtual users to hyper optimize the
| real campaigns.
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| i think it's accurate if we're talking 'bestie'. it's
| definitely a stereotype though
| surfingdino wrote:
| Are they hoping to make this as successful as avatars for
| Messenger chatbots?
| JohnMakin wrote:
| who is this even _for_? I understand I am a bit older than what
| is likely the target audience but I have zero desire as a creator
| to ever use this, in fact, it terrifies me - and I have zero
| desire to interact with creators in this way. What 's the point?
|
| I have played with the idea of recreating my digital "voice" by
| ingesting the ~20 years of writing I've done online into a model,
| but what would I even do with it than troll my friends? That's
| where I usually stop.
| skocznymroczny wrote:
| Many of the top influencers have offered a service where for a
| fee you can "chat" with them. When in reality you pay with an
| employee tasked with impersonating the influencer. Many of them
| are outsourcing this job to an AI, so that fans can pretend (or
| believe) they're chatting with a real person.
|
| [0] https://gamerant.com/amouranth-ai-influencer-chatbot-
| explain...
| th0ma5 wrote:
| I don't think many organizations are not mature enough to not see
| situations where one department starts generating AI and the team
| on the other side doesn't know this and has to use AI to consume
| it, and there is no net gain in work. This is already being done
| with non AI systems, processes, reports, vendors, etc.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-30 23:02 UTC)