Comment by sinecure | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sinecure | Hacker News Reader

The end result of all this fakery is a growing doubt and distrust of the world and the information presented to us. Bots on twitter, corporate reddit moderators pruning discourse, astroturfed discussions, deepfakes, AI generated news articles, AI art, it all waters down the assumption that what we see before us is real. Leading us to doubt everything we read, see and hear. Much of this bot driven noise online is only possible in large, public online communities.

I think we will see a shift towards much smaller walled gardens of community online. It's already happening with the mass exodus to discord and smaller chatrooms. I think we can all safely assume that our 30 discord friends are real people... for now.

The country club exists for the wealthy to enjoy the pleasantries of community and pastime without interruption by the masses. I think the internet will move to mirror the real world as we segregate apart into the places we most enjoy... or have the connections and money to afford. Authentic and vibrant human communities with novel content curation will be a luxury, while the "public pool" for the masses will be an internet of data pollution and grime.

Yes, the article mostly assumes that the initial effects of AI generated fake content will be the same as the final effects. This is silly.

People will change what they do in response. Though at the very end, he does say "We should learn to be skeptical of content", that belongs near the beginning, before an analysis of what the effects of increased skepticism will be, rather than what the effects of blindly believing fake content will be (since that won't happen, after a short initial period).

Smaller communities are one possible response. But just more critical assessment of arguments and reported facts is another. For arguments, it doesn't really matter whether or not the argument was AI generated - if it's valid, it's valid, if it's not, it's not. For factual reports, critical assessment might be more difficult, though I think it will be a while before AI generated fake facts have the the right sorts of connections to common-sense reality to withstand critical examination.

> right sorts of connections to common-sense reality

Unfortunately, I think this matters less than it should. Connection to common-sense reality does not seem to be a prerequisite for most people who engage with content on the internet.

Content, info, arguments, etc. are all propagated online based on their deliciousness. Is it dramatic? Easy to digest? Shocking? Emotionally powerful? Bright and alluring? Sexy or disgusting? These are the elements that push information to the top. Reality, truth and logic can't compete.

Advertisers figured this out in the middle of the 20th century. Prior to Edward Bernays' (Sigmund Freud's relative) revolution of advertising, products were marketed based on their functional qualities: how effective they were, how efficient, etc. Bernays realized from war propaganda and Freud's ideas of the unconscious, that selling with emotional coercion and sex was far more effective. In fact, you could make people buy things they didn't really want or need, by making them unhappy without them. He was able to convince women to smoke cigarettes by having trendy, independent women smoke openly at a parade, followed by a branding campaign calling them "torches of freedom". This concept of emotional manipulation trumping factual data is how our entire society now operates.

If we want a skeptical and thoughtful populace, our entire education system must be restructured and information dieting will have to become an innate part of the online experience.

People haven't shown the inclination for more critical assessment so far; why would that change all of a sudden?

And AI fakes are still in their infancy. For example, they haven't learned to push emotional buttons yet. But they will soon, because it's not all that hard, and it drastically increases the virality.

Now, with that in mind, watch this video, and weep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

> I think the internet will move to mirror the real world as we segregate apart into the places we most enjoy... or have the connections and money to afford.

Or we institute ever more stringent standards for verification of online accounts, both to prove one is human, and to tie online reputation to real identity. Not that I want to see this happen.

See Yancey Strickler on his Dark Forest theory

I know it's not really the point of this comment but public pools historically have been places to enjoy the pleasantries of community and pastime.

As an additional aside, you should spend some time considering the implications behind your selection of two significant hallmarks of institutionalized racism as your poles for opposite ends of a spectrum from "the pleasantries of community and pastime" to "pollution and grime [of the masses]".

They're a perfect example of how in America we have these public services that get overloaded and degraded in quality (because they are public), so the rich go and make their own private luxury versions to enjoy a more selective and high quality experience.

Reddit will be the future ghetto of the internet while the elite hang out in private discords!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com