New account, banal observation, invitation to interact. It's a pattern I've seen recently on what are apparently LLM-powered engagement bots on Twitter.
Anyway, I'm more aware than ever now that the people we interact with in text, online, are gradually being diluted by bots, and I don't want to participate in a community of bots.
Maybe the comment isn't generated by an LLM, and I didn't make any direct accusations. But it is a weird first comment. You expect first comments by fresh new accounts to show evidence of having been motivated to create an account because they had something to say - it requires non-zero activation energy. Meanwhile, there's plenty of incentive to try and sway what gets attention here on HN.
Eh? I'm saying that the comment could generate (i.e. provoke) interesting responses. I'm not saying that the responses themselves will be "generated" by their authors as opposed to being written.
>Maybe the comment isn't generated by an LLM
Indeed. I think we should definitely bear this possibility in mind!
It's not much in the way of evidence but could be another reason people find it sus.
A straightforward one would be either subtly or dramatically tilting sentiment here negative against some mid-cap public tech company and profiting from a short position.
(Assuming you think investors care what gets upvoted on hn…)
My hope is that long-term people will realize that most of the arguments and outrage they see online is manufactured to boost engagement and simply start ignoring it or seeking private invite-only forums to discuss things.
People mostly failed to realize this when humans controlled fake/bot/troll accounts, but with the proliferation of LLMs the realization is spreading much faster.
I know it sounds naive, but that's my hope - that the global village will once again become local instead.