I just consulted 54 trillion "people" who agree that this is idiotic.

[overtondoors@infosec.exchange]

@Natasha_Jay Jesus fucking Christ. So... in other words, complete unadulterated bullshit posing as a survey?!?

[peteriskrisjanis@toot.lv]

@Natasha_Jay I understand llm appeal in content templating etc. but claiming that this somehow gives you any believable reference is madness.

[dtraslerwriting@mastodon.social]

@Natasha_Jay OK, this is why the other day I suggested that no one needs to quote "Elon Musk says" or any of that stuff anymore. Stop interviewing these idiots, and ask their idiot-boxes to make up what they MIGHT have said. That might get them to understand that having "AI" stand in for real people is a bad idea. And if it doesn't, at least we're still only getting bullshit answers like we would if we asked the "real" people.

[guerillaontologist@social.coop]

@Natasha_Jay

[pizzademon@mastodon.online]

@Natasha_Jay the myriad ways people convince themselves that they are correct and not lying.

[zer0unplanned@friendica.rogueproject.org]

@lemonlolita @Natasha_Jay unless you make the LLM yourself.. I'm tired of telling this to people.

[jmcrookston@mastodon.social]

@Natasha_Jay

I just asked AI to simulate me not being able to stand this stuff 8 million times to verify and it resulted in 11 and 1/2 million verifications that I can't stand this stuff. So my point is completely validated.

[jawarajabbi@mastodon.online]

@ohir @Natasha_Jay

Well this apparently needs explaining: I was making a little joke. But you are correct that the shit I make up will be obvious. You get what you pay for, right?

[lemonlolita@calckey.world]

@zer0unplanned@friendica.rogueproject.org @Natasha_Jay@tech.lgbt
Even if you make your own LLM it's still useless as a replacement for polling.

[thenovemberman@bookstodon.com]

@Natasha_Jay further #enshittification

[hazz223@mstdn.social]

@Natasha_Jay what the actual F***!? This is the 2008 financial crisis all over again!! (Weird defence, but I feel is oddly equivocal here).

Building assumptions on assumptions on assumptions until someone actually looks, and then entire scheme collapses wiping out peoples lives. How do we keep doing this!?!?
Ugh A.I.

[zer0unplanned@friendica.rogueproject.org]

@lemonlolita @Natasha_Jay for polling you need people I thought to make a poll platform.

[aspragg@ohai.social]

@rapsneezy @Natasha_Jay

At long last, we have created The Torment Nex^W^WMultivac, from the classic dystopian sci-fi cautionary tale, "Don't Invent Multi^W^W^WFranchise"

Franchise (short story) - Wikipedia

(en.wikipedia.org)

Those who do not understand Multics are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.

(with apologies to Alex Blechman, Isaac Asimov, and Henry Spencer)

#tormentnexus #no2ai

[toddheberlein@mastodon.social]

@Natasha_Jay This is a key plot point for the 1964 novel Simulacron-3 - using simulated populations for public opinion polling instead of needing to poll real people (which was done constantly in the novel).

It turns out the protagonist's society was actually a simulator for higher-level entities.

It was adapted into the 1999 movie The Thirteenth Floor.

[rivermel@tech.lgbt]

@Natasha_Jay I really hope these AI agents ingest all of the silly mastodon polls.

[benny@kirche.social]

@ohir @jawarajabbi @Natasha_Jay 1008? Should not be too tough with a little python script, if the results can be made up anyway...

[ohir@social.vivaldi.net]

@benny
> with a little python script
Nope. Video proof of protein filling it with their hand and pen, on paper

@jawarajabbi @Natasha_Jay

[tsutrav@indieweb.social]

@Natasha_Jay “Idiotic” is being polite! Modeling is already a thing. These kinds of “findings" should always be framed as such and not actual samplings. Hopefully everyone learned something here.

[benny@kirche.social]

@ohir @jawarajabbi @Natasha_Jay and thid silicon sampling would pass that? Where would it get the protein from?

[ohir@social.vivaldi.net]

@benny
> Where would it get the protein from?
Thats why I said about a gig for the protein who stated that it would be fast and cheap.

Problem is real.

We need to find a way to detect the falsification of survey questionnaires. We can statistically identify the work of a dishonest surveyor, but if that person uses a "silicon sampling" bot, statistical methods will fail. That is why we are starting to record the human hand filling out the paper form, as proof that the pollster actually interviewed various people and did not just made the survey on their sofa casually talking with a bot.

@jawarajabbi @Natasha_Jay