this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
708 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
58682 readers
4005 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Further proof that humanity neither deserves nor is capable of having nice things.
Who would set up an AI bot to shit all over the one remaining useful thing on the Internet, and why?
I'm sure the answer is either 'for the lulz' or 'late-stage capitalism', but still: historically humans aren't usually burning down libraries on purpose.
Its because there's no accountability for cybercrimes. If humans always had a button to burn down libraries, I'm sure they would have. Instead they had to put themselves in harms way to do such things.
People do things cause they can, and fucking with Wikipedia is apparently simple.
State actors could be interested in doing that. Same with the internet archive attacks.
How on earth have you come to this conclusion.
To be fair, it's usually to effect cultural genocide. It's not average people burning libraries, it's usually some kind of authoritarian regime.
* looks around and gestures broadly in agreement*
Sometimes they are, Baghdad springs to mind, I'm sure there are other examples. And this library is online so there's less chance of getting caught with a can of petrol and a box of matches.
Then there's every authoritarian regime that tries to ban or burn specific types of books. What we're seeing here could be more like that - an attempt to muddy the waters or introduce misinformation on certain topics.
Florida says hello. A bunch of other places too, sadly:-(.
Because basement losers can't conquer and raze libraries to the ground.
The internet has shown that assumed anonymity result in people fucking with other people's lives for the hell of it. Viruses, trolling, etc. This is just the next stage of it because of a new easy to use tool.
Yeah but the other thing about humanity is it's mostly harmless. Edits can be reverted, articles can be locked. Wikipedia will be fine.
Sure, but the vandalism has to be identified first. And that takes time and effort.
Wikipedia relies on sources, and humans choosing the sources like newspapers. And those newspapers are more and more inside a "bubble" that rejects any evidence or reporting presented by a competing bubble.
Right now wikipedia is covering up one of the greatest acts of mass murder of our times, because the newspapers are covering it up, or rejecting evidence because it's by the "enemy". Part of this is a defensive posture against AI bots and enemy disinformation.
It's not about on purpose but usually most people don't care about what's not in their interest. Today interests are usually quite shallow what tiktok shows quite well. Libraries do require money for operating. Even internet archive and wikipedia
People like this
Maybe a strange way of activism that is trying to poison new AI models 🤔
Which would not work, since all tech giants have already archived preAI internet
Ah, so the AI version of the chewbacca defense.
I have to wonder if intentionally shitting on LLMs with plausible nonsense is effective.
Like, you watch for certain user agents and change what data you actually send the bot vs what a real human might see.
I suspect it would be difficult to generate enough data to intentionally change a dataset. There are certainly little holes, like the glue pizza thing, but finding and exploiting them would be difficult and noticing you and blocking you as a data source would be easy.
I don't think so. The volume of data is too large for it to make much of a difference, and a scraper can just mimic a human user agent and work that way.
You'd have to change so much data consistently across so many different places that it would be near-impossible for a single human effort.
I never told that I think it is smart…