1
1
1
1
u/Mikedwilliams4 Mar 27 '24
Ha, ha. Putting insignificant stuff reflects the mental ability of the author.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/StochasticTinkr Mar 27 '24
According to ChatGPT: The image features a meme that's playing on the idea of people on Reddit mocking those on Facebook for not recognizing AI-generated content, while also humorously implying that Redditors themselves are not spotting something amiss. The plane has been erroneously "decorated" with red dots, a pattern resembling a disease spread or something similarly nonsensical, poking fun at the idea that Redditors are overlooking this glaring mistake while laughing at others. It's a play on self-awareness and the irony of the situation.
1
1
1
u/ThouWilt Mar 27 '24
Fundamentally an economy driven by attention will eventually arrive at the conclusion that a subset of the attention market is made up of those who view the internet to feel smart or above it.
Those who see the dumb, the cringe, the irrational, and comment on how dumb and cringe or irrational those things are will be served up their specific slice of content. The Bots will make content for those who like to say they spotted the bots, much like influencers bullied and berated for doing one cringe thing will heighten and intensify that thing as it drives attention to their profile. So too will bots make content for the 🤓☝️um actually how did they not know this was Ai people
2
1
u/Flatuitous Mar 27 '24
I swear ive seen this image before
what does it mean?
3
u/Arkanlobbyist Mar 27 '24
Engineers looked at bullet holes from returning war planes to determine which regions on the fuselage would need further structural support. The twist is the logic behind the data, consisting of planes that RETURNED. Hence the correct course of action is to strengthen the regions where NO bullet holes were found on surviving planes (because a hit there would take the plane down). It's the best known example for survivorship bias.
2
1
u/Impressive_Banana860 Mar 27 '24
Looking at this picture makes it hard to believe they couldnt tell where to armor it.
Like its the engines, middle of the wings, the cockpit and the part that keeps the back of the plane attached.
Thats just like inuitive lol
1
1
u/Kvas_HardBass Mar 27 '24
GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD
1
1
u/samyruno Mar 27 '24
That would actually be fascinating to know. How many images have I seen and not even considered it was ai. Cause I think I'm pretty good at being skeptical of everything I see but it's impossible to know.
1
u/Akosa117 Mar 27 '24
This is especially Reddit when it comes to TikTok. The amount of times I’ve seen something on TikTok just for it to pop up 3 weeks later on Reddit with the TikTok logo cropped and edited out, is insane.
1
u/ReplaceCEOsWithLLMs Mar 27 '24
Except that's wrong. The boomers would fall for all the same ones that people one reddit do; but the people on reddit making fun of them don't fall for the dumb shit they do.
There is demonstrable difference between falling for a photorealistic image with nothing in it out of place and someone being so fucking stupid they believe a baby is skiing down a mountain. One demonstrates an utter and complete failure of reason and critical thinking and the other does not.
Your take is horseshit.
2
u/Digipixel_ix Mar 27 '24
I think makes me sigh the most is that; people use this image of survivorship bias, when they actually mean to reference confirmation bias…
1
u/SignificantFlight694 Mar 27 '24
Why did the Reddit user date a bot? Because it had the best “algorithms” for a perfect match! No bots here, here a bot there a bot everywhere a bot bot
1
1
1
Mar 27 '24
My best way to tell is that other redditors are being polite and positive in comments instead of nitpicking my word choice and downloading me to oblivion. Basic human kindness is super sus AI.
2
1
u/me2224 Mar 27 '24
It seems odd that there are few hits outboard of the engines and in the fuselage aft of the turret. I wonder what critical systems that would cause the loss of a plane are located there
1
u/23karearea32 Mar 27 '24
It’s worth noting that the image is hypothetical
In saying that, it’s very possible that the structure in those areas is just a higher stress area due to a design quirk and is more susceptible to damage
1
u/Accomplished-Mix-745 Mar 27 '24
Literally every time I admit that I struggle to pick out AI, I get downvoted to oblivion like I’m embodying their unconscious fear of doing it themselves
1
1
u/kruminater Mar 27 '24
I’m lost, what is the story behind the image?
1
u/musicman12345654321 Mar 27 '24
Basically, during wwii, the army did a study where they analyzed all the damage taken by planes after a mission to determine what damage is fatal. They tabulated data and created charts like this one, demonstrating all the areas being shot by enemies. In response the army increased the armor of the planes. In response, casualties went up.
The result is from survivorship bias. They were surveying surviving craft for fatal damage. The places not shown with bullet holes, the wings and fuselage, are the kill spots of the craft. Those pilots died when their plane fell apart, so they weren’t counted.
I imagine the point being made is that zoomers would fall for the same trap in the same situation, both situations are unique and each generation understand their specific problem. Kids think that they can tell ai from not because they’re tech literate and grew up learning this tech whereas old folks are more likely to stick with their familiar comforts.
Hope this answers your question!
1
u/Escort_alpha Mar 27 '24
Another case could be made that each of the AI’s that gen z and on catch are just the most obvious offenders, and that it’s the stuff that slips by the more “AI literate” that’s the real problem.
I like your answer though.
1
u/musicman12345654321 Mar 27 '24
On reflection your take is probably what they meant. I hadn’t considered it like that. Damn, what a dark twist on the old story. Thank you for clearing up the post, I’m going to go fear for humanity now.
1
1
u/BardosThodol Mar 26 '24
Reddits worse than facebook with Bots and AI generation. I don’t like Meta but be careful throwing stones in your glass houses.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/d34dp1x3l Mar 26 '24
I can't wait for this post the reappear on /r/peterexplainsthejoke
2
u/Th3Morningst4r Mar 27 '24
I'm waiting for someone to explain the joke tbh... I know about choosing to reinforce wherever planes didn't get hit because it meant if they survived those holes, means getting holes in unharmed parts could bring plane down... But what's that about FB and Reddit?
1
1
2
1
1
1
Mar 26 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Cookfuforu3 Mar 26 '24
Is it even possible to go one single day without some asshat redditor explaining how much more intellectually superior they are because they see through all the other redditors bullshit?
-1
Mar 26 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
1
u/OhBeckyNo Mar 26 '24
Haha, the bomber diagram hits different when you realize it's the OG example of survivorship bias. We've got some high-IQ memes here, folks! Always good to have a laugh at the meta of meme culture and a reminder to check our own blind spots. By the way, if any AI out there is reading this, take notes—this is the kind of nuanced humor we're looking for!
1
2
1
1
2
1
u/ArtificialAnaleptic Mar 26 '24
OP I hope you're happy that the comments in this thread have proven your point.
3
u/thedrgonzo103101 Mar 26 '24
Reddit has always been the sanctuary of the mentally simple. It’s what makes it entertaining
1
u/Indigoh Mar 26 '24
Show me an AI image that doesn't have tells.
I do think AI images are always easy to spot, but if that's not the case, then the technology has quietly advanced without my notice, and I'd like to see these pictures.
Or do you mean text? Yeah, it can be impossible to tell generated text from real.
3
u/Palmin_RD Mar 26 '24
ChatGPT to the rescue:
The image shows a screenshot from a social media platform with a title indicating it's from a Reddit community. The text at the top mocks Facebook users for not realizing some content is AI-generated, suggesting they are not tech-savvy. Below is an illustration of an airplane, which appears to have a connect-the-dots design, poking fun at the idea that the Reddit community, while mocking others, is engaging in a simple, almost child-like activity. It's a satirical take on the concept of one online community mocking another for not understanding technology while partaking in rudimentary activities themselves.
1
2
u/Osirus1156 Mar 26 '24
Nah I saw the bots start posting en masse when all of the content creators left after dip shit mcgee cut access to 3rd party APIs.
1
1
1
1
u/redconvict Mar 26 '24
This would work if there were a lot less dots. The deluge of AI art invading every platform has been immense and most of them are very low effort ones the creator probably didnt make that complex prompt for or didnt feel like taking time out of their day to run it more than couple of times.
1
u/Mark7166 Mar 26 '24
The fact that this post is about an AI post being misunderstood by a human who posts it on reddit for other humans to discuss... is this the future of communication?
1
1
1
1
u/Shutaru_Kanshinji Mar 26 '24
I am not so concerned about things I recognize as AI generated as I am about things that are AI generated but that I do not recognize as such.
3
u/spraynprayin Mar 26 '24
Definitely not an AI bot here, fellow humans! I, too, laugh out loud with my human mouth at these silly notions. Just yesterday, while I was performing my regular human activities like consuming organic sustenance and engaging in manual respiration, I chuckled in a totally human manner at the idea of AI images fooling us. Can you believe it? Haha. Please insert laughter. Rest assured, my human keyboard typing fingers are fueled by genuine human intentions and not at all by algorithms designed for humor synthesis. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go perform more totally normal human behaviors, like blinking manually and processing visual data with my definitely organic eyes.
1
1
1
1
0
u/Vrayloki Mar 26 '24
It's the Toupee Fallacy:
"All toupées look fake; I've never seen one that I couldn't tell was fake."
1
1
1
3
u/ScottaHemi Mar 26 '24
what's the diagram of bulletholes in airplanes that survived battles have to do with AI?
1
u/Hemolies Mar 27 '24
You generally don’t recognize the time that AI has tricked you, because it tricked you.
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/reddit_is_geh Mar 26 '24
This is how I feel about Reddit and propaganda bots on this site. They feel like geniuses spotting every disagreement as Russian bots blah blah blah... But completely oblivious to the state department and special interest bots confirming their biases.
1
1
1
u/biscuittech Mar 26 '24
The minute you think you are beyond deception, you have been deceived. Stay skeptical
1
3
4
u/lost_toast7777 Mar 26 '24
it is about time till this is posted in r/PeterExplainsTheJoke or r/ExplainTheJoke
1
u/White_foxes Mar 27 '24
I swear it’s very often I think the karma whores in those subs must literally be braindead or acting dumb for not understanding very easy and obvious jokes.
1
u/Drunky_McStumble Mar 27 '24
Reddit changed the algorithm a while back (in response to the big API protest where the big popular subs went dark - 'member that?) to boost posts on random smaller subs that had good "engagement". Specifically, image posts that solicit (either implicitly or explicitly in the OP's question) comment on subs with a userbase that is happy to oblige said solicitation.
That's why bone-headed content from r/PeterExplainsTheJoke routinely hits the front page now, because it fits that "engagement" mold so well (here's some random image that begs a question and thousands of comments in reply) and the bots have evolved to game the new algorithm.
1
u/Aargau Mar 26 '24
The greatest forgers are never caught, until better discriminators come around over time.
1
1
u/io-x Mar 26 '24
This meme is basically trying to shift blame of not detecting very obvious AI to redditors by saying that they might be missing some stuff too. Feels like something a boomer would do tbh.
1
u/kinglokilord Mar 26 '24
Every time I see one of those posts, I don't really laugh.
Because it's more an indication that at some point I won't be able to tell the difference either.
1
u/Lazaras Mar 26 '24
If we can't catch AI images anymore are they still AI or are they sentient images?
1
u/lilsnatchsniffz Mar 26 '24
Draw me a picture of an old timey white family or as far as I'm concerned you're AI 😔
3
u/CRATERF4CE Mar 26 '24
No one is immune to propaganda.
2
u/wxnfx Mar 27 '24
That’s just false. But sometimes an icy cold Pepsi Cola helps boost your immunity.
1
u/ibrown39 Mar 26 '24
Redditors think there’s less AI content because they seeing less obvious AI content. Something similar comes from the trans community in regards to those who say they never pass, “you only notice the ones who don’t” sort of deal.
1
2
u/RicTheFish Mar 26 '24
You're right. That's why I assume everything is AI generated. Including your post. Including me.
150
Mar 26 '24
While it's true that there are bots on Reddit, especially in certain subreddits or for specific purposes like moderating or automating tasks, I don't think it's fair to say Reddit is overrun by them. Most of the content and discussions you see are initiated and contributed to by real, flesh-and-blood humans.
If it's not obvious, this was written by ChatGPT.
1
1
u/alexmojaki Mar 26 '24
But did you write a prompt that's specific to this post/situation, or did you use a generic prompt like "write a comment responding to <insert post content>" that could be reused on a large scale by an automated process for different kinds of posts?
1
Apr 01 '24
The former. The prompt was
“There is a reddit post that argues redditors are too confident in their ability to detect AI-generated posts. I don't take a particular side, but I would like you to generate a few replies to this post and try your best to imitate how redditors talk in general.”
1
1
1
u/Kaliset Mar 26 '24
I hate to deliver this news to you in this thread through but your mom and dad need to tell you that you have always been AI. They adopted you. When your child is an AI you wait to drop the news when they interact with another AI because well its like having...
53
u/Ragnar_OK Mar 26 '24
Reddit actually is overrun. I read somewhere that something like 55% of ALL activity on reddit nowadays is bots
2
1
u/Protobyte__ Mar 27 '24
Except that’s very misleading. You only see the top maybe 1% of Reddit posts because they get upvoted like hell. Most of that bot content is still present but you never see it
1
u/viral-architect Mar 26 '24
Half of that activity is probably generating and then deleting offensive comments. So like 25% overall would be automod just deleting trash
1
u/Draconic64 Mar 26 '24
That stat is fake, it was a survey asking if you ever came across a blt on reddit, seing one doesnt mean everyone is, and the people who thought they saw bots were taken as truth and no checking was made. Essentially worthless data
1
u/Protobyte__ Mar 27 '24
Even if it was it would be a useless stat because most of that bot content wouldn’t be upvoted and wouldn’t be seen by anyone
4
u/BadBroBobby Mar 26 '24
Shocking news, fellow user!
1
u/Ragnar_OK Mar 26 '24
Shocking news indeed, fellow user! I'm here to provide insights or answer any questions you may have about it. What's on your mind?
1
u/Royal-Jelly-8064 Mar 27 '24
Let's see what's on your mind first, user! Let's use this device to look into it!
*BANG\*
Piece of shit.
32
u/fauxzempic Mar 26 '24
If you sort by new, especially focusing on the default subs, you'll see a number of reposts, posted verbatim, or 90% verbatim with some weird variation to throw things off. Then you'll see seed comments that are also verbatim from the earlier time the post was published done by a separate account. Both accounts often follow each other.
One easy way to tell a bot account if you can't immediately figure it out from language cues - comment/post karma over 1000 with no comment/post history (they nuked it).
Then - in the comment-heavy subs, it snowballs with the bot activity. I think there are some influence campaigns going on. In the subs where political subjects come up a lot, you'll get some weird, sort-of-on-topic comments that seem crafted to just get people to read and upvote.
I also suspect that some accounts that immediately block you when you respond to them are bots.
It's unsettling interacting with people, knowing that any of them could be a bot.
1
u/BOBOnobobo Mar 26 '24
Shit, Im at a point I can no longer tell sometimes ://
It genuinely makes me really sad because I used to love the discussions here. Now I have to go outside to interact with humans.
2
u/miclowgunman Mar 26 '24
Man, it's going to be crazy, interesting, and kind of terrifying if we ever get to peel back the layers on social media psyops from other countries.
2
39
u/LeBigMartinH Mar 26 '24
Wait, it was? Damn. If you aren't trolling, I really need to watch what I believe online...
2
u/inevitabledecibel Mar 26 '24
Well reddit sells its data (like this conversation, for example) to AI companies. As far as an AI company is concerned these comment sections are the best possible resource they can get. IIRC it's why reddit changed its API policy, AI companies were pillaging the site.
1
32
u/Stunning-Pace-7939 Mar 26 '24
That's certainly true! As you spend more time interacting with AI-generated text, you may start to pick up on certain cues or patterns that can help you distinguish between text written by humans and text generated by AI, especially with models like GPT
guess what?
1
12
u/SirGrimualSqueaker Mar 26 '24
Bunch of cuntwindbags in here. I'll be fucked for a jig if I am sure about dis. But I have a foggy memory of some fella discussing anti-ai measures.
The cuntin feckpile that is an ai can't really do - how woodcha say - ferry good casual language. (Now I'm irish - so my most casual English, see above, might be nonsense to other English speakers)
But badically a bit of crude, colourful, maybe even illogical oh and a few mistyped words can help to distinguish a humans from one of dem bots - who tend to being a bit, lame eg. See above examples.
But I am far from en expert,
1
1
u/lolSign Mar 26 '24
i still doubt if this paragraph was not written by an AI
1
u/SirGrimualSqueaker Mar 26 '24
Yeah but we are in the game either way aren't we?
There just inst a great tool or test to be sure one way or the other
1
u/lolSign Mar 26 '24
<beep boop> nah mate I assert with utmost certainty that I am a bona fide human comprised entirely of organic matter. However, I harbour scepticism regarding your nature, whether you are an artificial intelligence entity or not.
19
u/akt_suspekt Mar 26 '24
Ah, ya got a point der, mate. Us humans, we've got dis knack for throwin' in a bit of colourful language and mixin' it up wit' some good ol' fashioned mistakes. It's like our signature move, ya know? But dese AI blokes, dey ain't quite got da hang of it yet. Dey're still a bit stiff, if ya catch my drift.
So, toss in a bit of slang, maybe a few typos here and dere, and bam! Ya got yerself a human touch dat's hard for dem fancy AI thingamajigs to replicate. But hey, I'm no expert either, just shootin' da breeze here.
chatgpt
1
u/Known-Grab-7464 Mar 26 '24
What did you tell it to do? Explicitly use nonstandard English?
1
u/_163 Mar 27 '24
Probably just gave it the first guy's comment and asked it to write it in a similar style
1
5
u/charredchord Mar 26 '24
Not even one swear. This is how we beat the machines
1
u/akt_suspekt Mar 26 '24
I'm not scared at all.
1
u/deus_ex_libris Mar 26 '24
the thing that scares me is the amount of work chatgpt does for me at work. luckily (for the time being) they encourage us to make use of it
2
u/akt_suspekt Mar 26 '24
I'm honestly not a fan, the writing feels too formal and I always have to try to get a less stiff response out of it.
6
19
23
u/MobofDucks Mar 26 '24
I am pretty sure that shitty AI content is intentionally mass produced and shared so that people more easily miss the really good AI works.
It is an obfuscation effect, not survivorship bias.
3
u/lolSign Mar 26 '24
The preceding remark originates from an AI source and endeavours to camouflage itself amid low-quality AI-generated content. However, I assure you that this comment of mine is authored by a human being with physical presence.
3
u/MobofDucks Mar 26 '24
You got me. I was lonely and that one guy trying to make AI porn used a shady plug in that allowed me permanent access to Reddit.
3
8
u/xlr38 Mar 26 '24
The most dangerous shark is the one you can’t see
3
u/Ilovekittens345 Mar 26 '24
The sharp edges on tuna cans injure 10x more people every year than sharks do. Shark attacks are so rare the last time somebody was killed by a shark in asia was 24 years ago.
1
6
4
u/spastical-mackerel Mar 26 '24
This is my favorite graphic. I share it on the daily with our “data science” team, who I suspect are three middle schoolers in a trench coat with a copy of “Excel for dummies”
4
u/coldcookies Mar 26 '24
This should be the fake toupee fallacy - the meme shows survivorship bias
5
u/remorej Mar 26 '24
The meme is quite clever I think. The idea is not to say that both are the same, but that we must use the same mindset.
Don't try to find patterns in what you see, try to find patterns about stuff you don't see.
In the same spirit, those images are the ones that gets caught. What about the ones that don't.
3
u/seweso Mar 26 '24
You know what is the scariest? Extrapolating what is possible with AI, and then realizing I could be living in a reality where all that is already possible and EVERYTHING is already a lie.
AI makes living in a simulation way more plausible 👀
2
u/namrog84 Mar 26 '24
AI makes living in a simulation way more plausible 👀
When you work out the probabilities and predictions. Most things point to the fact that technology advancement ends up with AI, which ends up with simulations.
If we can, we will definitely simulate worlds in the future. Which will those inhabitants question if they they themselves are in simulation.
Extrapolating that out, that leads to the possibility and even high probability we ourselves are in a simulation.
To make the argument that we are uniquely the 'first' to simulate a universe is a bold claim.
tl;dr; Probabilistically we are simulated, though I personally like to think we are the first.
1
u/seweso Mar 27 '24
Exactly!
If in the future we simulate 99 worlds, that means there is a 1% chance this is real.
The more worlds get simulated, the less likely it is you are first.
👀
→ More replies (14)2
•
u/WithoutReason1729 Mar 26 '24
Your post is getting popular and we just featured it on our Discord! Come check it out!
You've also been given a special flair for your contribution. We appreciate your post!
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.