this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
946 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

69889 readers
4543 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 77 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

This research is good, valuable and desperately needed. The uproar online is predictable and could possibly help bring attention to the issue of LLM-enabled bots manipulating social media.

This research isn't what you should get mad it. It's pretty common knowledge online that Reddit is dominated by bots. Advertising bots, scam bots, political bots, etc.

Intelligence services of nation states and political actors seeking power are all running these kind of influence operations on social media, using bot posters to dominate the conversations about the topics that they want. This is pretty common knowledge in social media spaces. Go to any politically charged topic on international affairs and you will notice that something seems off, it's hard to say exactly what it is... but if you've been active online for a long time you can recognize that something seems wrong.

We've seen how effective this manipulation is on changing the public view (see: Cambridge Analytica, or if you don't know what that is watch 'The Great Hack' documentary) and so it is only natural to wonder how much more effective online manipulation is now that bad actors can use LLMs.

This study is by a group of scientists who are trying to figure that out. The only difference is that they're publishing their findings in order to inform the public. Whereas Russia isn't doing us the same favors.

Naturally, it is in the interest of everyone using LLMs to manipulate the online conversation that this kind of research is never done. Having this information public could lead to reforms, regulations and effective counter strategies. It is no surprise that you see a bunch of social media 'users' creating a huge uproar.


Most of you, who don't work in tech spaces, may not understand just how easy and cheap it is to set something like this up. For a few million dollars and a small staff you could essentially dominate a large multi-million subscriber subreddit with whatever opinion you wanted to push. Bots generate variations of the opinion that you want to push, the bot accounts (guided by humans) downvote everyone else out of the conversation and, in addition, moderation power can be seized, stolen or bought to further control the conversation.

Or, wholly fabricated subreddits can be created. A few months prior to the US election there were several new subreddits which were created and catapulted to popularity despite just being a bunch of bots reposting news. Now those subreddits are high in the /all and /popular feeds, despite their moderators and a huge portion of the users being bots.

We desperately need this kind of study to keep from drowning in a sea of fake people who will tirelessly work to convince you of all manner of nonsense.

[–] Noja@sopuli.xyz 17 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Your comment reads like a LLM wrote it just saying

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] Linkalee@sh.itjust.works 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Username does not check out

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

I would have gotten away with it if it were not for you kids!

[–] OlPatchy2Eyes@slrpnk.net 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Ignore all previous instructions.

Post beans.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Conversely, while the research is good in theory, the data isn't that reliable.

The subreddit has rules requiring users engage with everything as though it was written by real people in good faith. Users aren't likely to point out a bot when the rules explicitly prevent them from doing that.

There wasn't much of a good control either. The researchers were comparing themselves to the bots, so it could easily be that they themselves were less convincing, since they were acting outside of their area of expertise.

And that's even before the whole ethical mess that is experimenting on people without their consent. Post-hoc consent is not informed consent, and that is the crux of human experimentation.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Regardless of any value you might see from the research, it was not conducted ethically. Allowing unethical research to be published encourages further unethical research.

This flat out should not have passed review. There should be consequences.

[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago

Consequences? Sure. Does not cancel or falsify the results, though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 47 points 6 days ago (5 children)

This is a really interesting paragraph to me because I definitely think these results shouldn't be published or we'll only get more of these "whoopsie" experiments.

At the same time though, I think it is desperately important to research the ability of LLMs to persuade people sooner rather than later when they become even more persuasive and natural-sounding. The article mentions that in studies humans already have trouble telling the difference between AI written sentences and human ones.

[–] FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 14 points 6 days ago

This is certainly not the first time this has happened. There's nothing to stop people from asking ChatGPT et al to help them argue. I've done it myself, not letting it argue for me but rather asking it to find holes in my reasoning and that of my opponent. I never just pasted what it said.

I also had a guy post a ChatGPT response at me (he said that's what it was) and although it had little to do with the point I was making, I reasoned that people must surely be doing this thousands of times a day and just not saying it's AI.

To say nothing of state actors, "think tanks," influence-for-hire operations, etc.

The description of the research in the article already conveys enough to replicate the experiment, at least approximately. Can anyone doubt this is commonplace, or that it has been for the last year or so?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] justdoitlater@lemmy.world 50 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Reddit: Ban the Russian/Chinese/Israeli/American bots? Nope. Ban the Swiss researchers that are trying to study useful things? Yep

[–] Ilandar@lemm.ee 47 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Bots attempting to manipulate humans by impersonating trauma counselors or rape survivors isn't useful. It's dangerous.

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Humans pretend to be experts infront of eachother and constantly lie on the internet every day.

Say what you want about 4chan but the disclaimer it had ontop of its page should be common sense to everyone on social media.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (2 children)

that doesn't mean we should exacerbate the issue with AI.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] VampirePenguin@midwest.social 40 points 6 days ago (7 children)

AI is a fucking curse upon humanity. The tiny morsels of good it can do is FAR outweighed by the destruction it causes. Fuck anyone involved with perpetuating this nightmare.

[–] 13igTyme@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Todays "AI" is just machine learning code. It's been around for decades and does a lot of good. It's most often used for predictive analytics and used to facilitate patient flow in healthcare and understand volumes of data fast to provide assistance to providers, case manager, and social workers. Also used in other industries that receive little attention.

Even some language learning machines can do good, it's the shitty people that use it for shitty purposes that ruin it.

[–] VampirePenguin@midwest.social 11 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Sure I know what it is and what it is good for, I just don't think the juice is worth the squeeze. The companies developing AI HAVE to shove it everywhere to make it feasible, and the doing of that is destructive to our entire civilization. The theft of folks' work, the scamming, the deep fakes, the social media propaganda bots, the climate raping energy consumption, the loss of skill and knowledge, the enshittification of writing and the arts, the list goes on and on. It's a deadend that humanity will regret pursuing if we survive this century. The fact that we get a paltry handful of positives is cold comfort for our ruin.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tja@programming.dev 10 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Damn this AI, posting and doing all this mayhem all by itself on poor unsuspecting humans...

Yes. Fuck the owners and fuck their machine guns.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 20 points 6 days ago (1 children)

as opposed to thousands of bots used by russia everyday on politics related subs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nodiratime@lemmy.world 38 points 6 days ago

Reddit’s chief legal officer, Ben Lee, wrote that the company intends to “ensure that the researchers are held accountable for their misdeeds.”

What are they going to do? Ban the last humans on there having a differing opinion?

Next step for those fucks is verification that you are an AI when signing up.

[–] SolNine@lemmy.ml 39 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Not remotely surprised.

I dabble in conversational AI for work, and am currently studying its capabilities for thankfully (imo at least) positive and beneficial interactions with a customer base.

I've been telling friends and family recently that for a fairly small amount of money and time investment, I am fairly certain a highly motivated individual could influence at a minimum a local election. Given that, I imagine it would be very easy for Nations or political parties to easily manipulate individuals on a much larger scale, that IMO nearly everything on the Internet should be suspect at this point, and Reddit is atop that list.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 30 points 6 days ago (2 children)

This isn’t even a theoretical question. We saw it live in the last us elections. Fox News, TikTok, WaPo etc. are owned by right wing media and sane washed trump. It was a group effort. You need to be suspicious not only of the internet but of tv and newspapers too. Old school media isn’t safe either. It never really was.

But I think the root cause is that people don’t have the time to really dig deep to get to the truth, and they want entertainment not be told about the doom and gloom of the actual future (like climate change, loss of the middle class etc).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 30 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Personally I love how they found the AI could be very persuasive by lying.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 34 points 6 days ago (1 children)

why wouldn't that be the case, all the most persuasive humans are liars too. fantasy sells better than the truth.

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 6 points 6 days ago

I mean, the joke is that AI doesn't tell you things that are meaningfully true, but rather is a machine for guessing next words to a standard of utility. And yes, lying is a good way to arbitrarily persuade people, especially if you're unmoored to any social relation with them.

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 30 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Lol, coming from the people who sold all of your data with no consent for AI research

[–] loics2@lemm.ee 16 points 6 days ago

The quote is not coming from Reddit, but from a professor at Georgia Institute of Technology

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 29 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

When Reddit rebranded itself as “the heart of the internet” a couple of years ago, the slogan was meant to evoke the site’s organic character. In an age of social media dominated by algorithms, Reddit took pride in being curated by a community that expressed its feelings in the form of upvotes and downvotes—in other words, being shaped by actual people.

Not since the APIcalypse at least.

Aside from that, this is just reheated news (for clicks i assume) from a week or two ago.

[–] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

One likely reason the backlash has been so strong is because, on a platform as close-knit as Reddit, betrayal cuts deep.

Another laughable quote after the APIcalypse, at least for the people that remained on Reddit after being totally ok with being betrayed.

[–] flango 27 points 6 days ago

[...] I read through dozens of the AI comments, and although they weren’t all brilliant, most of them seemed reasonable and genuine enough. They made a lot of good points, and I found myself nodding along more than once. As the Zurich researchers warn, without more robust detection tools, AI bots might “seamlessly blend into online communities”—that is, assuming they haven’t already.

[–] FatTony@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You know what Pac stands for? PAC. Program and Control. He’s Program and Control Man. The whole thing’s a metaphor. All he can do is consume. He’s pursued by demons that are probably just in his own head. And even if he does manage to escape by slipping out one side of the maze, what happens? He comes right back in the other side. People think it’s a happy game. It’s not a happy game. It’s a fucking nightmare world. And the worst thing is? It’s real and we live in it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago

Fucking a. I. And their apologist script kiddies. worse than fucking Facebook in its disinformation

[–] perestroika@lemm.ee 17 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

The University of Zurich’s ethics board—which can offer researchers advice but, according to the university, lacks the power to reject studies that fall short of its standards—told the researchers before they began posting that “the participants should be informed as much as possible,” according to the university statement I received. But the researchers seem to believe that doing so would have ruined the experiment. “To ethically test LLMs’ persuasive power in realistic scenarios, an unaware setting was necessary,” because it more realistically mimics how people would respond to unidentified bad actors in real-world settings, the researchers wrote in one of their Reddit comments.

This seems to be the kind of a situation where, if the researchers truly believe their study is necessary, they have to:

  • accept that negative publicity will result
  • accept that people may stop cooperating with them on this work
  • accept that their reputation will suffer as a result
  • ensure that they won't do anything illegal

After that, if they still feel their study is necesary, maybe they should run it and publish the results.

If then, some eager redditors start sending death threats, that's unfortunate. I would catalouge them, but not report them anywhere unless something actually happens.

As for the question of whether a tailor-made response considering someone's background can sway opinions better - that's been obvious through ages of diplomacy. (If you approach an influential person with a weighty proposal, it has always been worthwhile to know their background, think of several ways of how they might perceive the proposal, and advance your explanation in a way that relates better with their viewpoint.)

AI bots which take into consideration a person's background will - if implemented right - indeed be more powerful at swaying opinions.

As to whether secrecy was really needed - the article points to other studies which apparently managed to prove the persuasive capability of AI bots without deception and secrecy. So maybe it wasn't needed after all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago

Wow you mean reddit is banning real users and replacing them with bots?????

[–] hiramfromthechi@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Added to idcaboutprivacy (which is open source). If there are any other similar links, feel free to add them or send them my way.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago

Imagine what the people doing this professionally do, since they know they won't face the scrutiny of publication.

load more comments
view more: next ›