This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Anyone on Facebook deserves to be shit on by sloppy. They also deserve scanned out of all of the money and anything else.
If you’re on Facebook, you deserve this. Get the hell off Facebook.
Edit: itt: brain, dead, and fascist apologist Facebook Earth, who just refuse to accept that their platform is one of the biggest advent of Nazi fascism in this country, and they are all 100% complicit.
Have you ever successfully berated a stranger into doing what you wanted them to do?
That’s an extremely low sample size for this
8,855 long-form Facebook posts from various users using a 3rd party. The dataset spans from 2018 to November 2024, with a minimum of 100 posts per month, each containing at least 100 words.
seems like thats a good baseline rule and that was about the total number that matched it
With apparently 3 billion active users
Only summing up 9k posts over a 6 year stretch with over 100 words feels like an outreach problem. Conclusion could be drawn that bots have better reach
each post has to be 100 words with at least 100 posts a month
how many actual users do that?
I have no idea because I don’t use the site
But to say less than 0.0001% just seems hard to believe
I don't use the site either but 100 words is a lot for a facebook post
If you could reliably detect "AI" using an "AI" you could also use an "AI" to make posts that the other "AI" couldn't detect.
Sure, but then the generator AI is no longer optimised to generate whatever you wanted initially, but to generate text that fools the detector network, thus making the original generator worse at its intended job.
I see no reason why "post right wing propaganda" and "write so you don't sound like "AI" " should be conflicting goals.
The actual argument why I don't find such results credible is that the "creator" is trained to sound like humans, so the "detector" has to be trained to find stuff that does not sound like humans. This means, both basically have to solve the same task: Decide if something sounds like a human.
To be able to find the "AI" content, the "detector" would have to be better at deciding what sounds like a human than the "creator". So for the results to have any kind of accuracy, you're already banking on the "detector" company having more processing power / better training data / more money than, say, OpenAI or google.
But also, if the "detector" was better at the job, it could be used as a better "creator" itself. Then, how would we distinguish the content it created?
I'm not necessarily saying they're conflicting goals, merely that they're not the same goal.
The incentive for the generator becomes "generate propaganda that doesn't have the language chatacteristics of typical LLMs", so the incentive is split between those goals. As a simplified example, if the additional incentive were "include the word bamboo in every response", I think we would both agree that it would do a worse job at its original goal, since the constraint means that outputs that would have been optimal previously are now considered poor responses.
Meanwhile, the detector network has a far simpler task - given some input string, give back a value representing the confidence it was output by a system rather than a person.
I think it's also worth considering that LLMs don't "think" in the same way people do - where people construct an abstract thought, then find the best combinations of words to express that thought, an LLM generates words that are likely to follow the preceding ones (including prompts). This does leave some space for detecting these different approaches better than at random, even though it's impossible to do so reliably.
But I guess really the important thing is that people running these bots don't really care if it's possible to find that the content is likely generated, just so long as it's not so obvious that the content gets removed. This means they're not really incentivised to spend money training models to avoid detection.
Probably on par with the junk human users are posting
Hmm, "the junk human users are posting", or "the human junk users are posting"? We are talking about Facebook here, after all.
Deleted my account a little while ago but for my feed I think it was higher. You couldn't block them fast enough, and mostly obviously AI pictures that if the comments are to be believed as being actual humans...people believed were real. It was a total nightmare land. I'm sad that I have now lost contact with the few distant friends I had on there but otherwise NOTHING lost.
Take note this does not appear to be an independent study. Tell me I'm wrong?
Not my Annie! No! Not my Annie!
and, is the jury already in on which ai is most fuckable?
I'd tell you, but my area network appears to have already started blocking DeepSeek.
Deekseek that was not encrypting data
https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/30/deepseek_database_left_open/
According to Wiz, DeepSeek promptly fixed the issue when informed about it.
:-/
