50 posts tagged “ai-misuse”
Misuse of AI systems and LLMs.
2024
Everlasting jobstoppers: How an AI bot-war destroyed the online job market (via) This story by Joe Tauke highlights several unpleasant trends from the online job directory space at the moment.
The first is "ghost jobs" - job listings that company put out which don't actually correspond to an open role. A survey found that this is done for a few reasons: to keep harvesting resumes for future reference, to imply that the company is successful, and then:
Perhaps the most infuriating replies came in at 39% and 33%, respectively: “The job was filled” (but the post was left online anyway to keep gathering résumés), and “No reason in particular.”
That’s right, all you go-getters out there: When you scream your 87th cover letter into the ghost-job void, there’s a one in three chance that your time was wasted for “no reason in particular.”
Another trend is "job post scraping". Plenty of job listings sites are supported by advertising, so the more content they can gather the better. This has lead to an explosion of web scraping, resulting in vast tracts of listings that were copied from other sites and likely to be out-of-date or no longer correspond to open positions.
Most worrying of all: scams.
With so much automation available, it’s become easier than ever for identity thieves to flood the employment market with their own versions of ghost jobs — not to make a real company seem like it’s growing or to make real employees feel like they’re under constant threat of being replaced, but to get practically all the personal information a victim could ever provide.
I'm not 100% convinced by the "AI bot-war" component of this headline though. The article later notes that the "ghost jobs" report it quotes was written before ChatGPT's launch in November 2022. The story ends with a flurry of examples of new AI-driven tools for both applicants and recruiters, and I've certainly heard anecdotes of LinkedIn spam that clearly has a flavour of ChatGPT to it, but I'm not convinced that the AI component is (yet) as frustration-inducing as the other patterns described above.
Early Apple tech bloggers are shocked to find their name and work have been AI-zombified (via)
TUAW (“The Unofficial Apple Weblog”) was shut down by AOL in 2015, but this past year, a new owner scooped up the domain and began posting articles under the bylines of former writers who haven’t worked there for over a decade.
They're using AI-generated images against real names of original contributors, then publishing LLM-rewritten articles because they didn't buy the rights to the original content!
First Came ‘Spam.’ Now, With A.I., We’ve Got ‘Slop’. First the Guardian, now the NYT. I've apparently made a habit of getting quoted by journalists talking about slop!
I got the closing quote in this one:
Society needs concise ways to talk about modern A.I. — both the positives and the negatives. ‘Ignore that email, it’s spam,’ and ‘Ignore that article, it’s slop,’ are both useful lessons.
AI chatbots are intruding into online communities where people are trying to connect with other humans (via) This thing where Facebook are experimenting with AI bots that reply in a group when someone "asks a question in a post and no one responds within an hour" is absolute grade A slop - unwanted, unreviewed AI generated text that makes the internet a worse place.
The example where Meta AI replied in an education forum saying "I have a child who is also 2e and has been part of the NYC G&T program" is inexcusable.
Spam, junk … slop? The latest wave of AI behind the ‘zombie internet’. I'm quoted in this piece in the Guardian about slop:
I think having a name for this is really important, because it gives people a concise way to talk about the problem.
Before the term ‘spam’ entered general use it wasn’t necessarily clear to everyone that unwanted marketing messages were a bad way to behave. I’m hoping ‘slop’ has the same impact – it can make it clear to people that generating and publishing unreviewed AI-generated content is bad behaviour.
Slop is the new name for unwanted AI-generated content
I saw this tweet yesterday from @deepfates, and I am very on board with this:
[... 301 words]Watching in real time as "slop" becomes a term of art. the way that "spam" became the term for unwanted emails, "slop" is going in the dictionary as the term for unwanted AI generated content
I have a child who is also 2e and has been part of the NYC G&T program. We've had a positive experience with the citywide program, specifically with the program at The Anderson School.
— Meta AI bot, answering a question on a forum
The saddest part about it, though, is that the garbage books don’t actually make that much money either. It’s even possible to lose money generating your low-quality ebook to sell on Kindle for $0.99. The way people make money these days is by teaching students the process of making a garbage ebook. It’s grift and garbage all the way down — and the people who ultimately lose out are the readers and writers who love books.
Google Scholar search: “certainly, here is” -chatgpt -llm (via) Searching Google Scholar for “certainly, here is” turns up a huge number of academic papers that include parts that were evidently written by ChatGPT—sections that start with “Certainly, here is a concise summary of the provided sections:” are a dead giveaway.
On the zombie edition of the Washington Independent I discovered, the piece I had published more than ten years before was attributed to someone else. Someone unlikely to have ever existed, and whose byline graced an article it had absolutely never written.
[...] Washingtonindependent.com, which I’m using to distinguish it from its namesake, offers recently published, article-like content that does not appear to me to have been produced by human beings. But, if you dig through its news archive, you can find work human beings definitely did produce. I know this because I was one of them.
The unsettling scourge of obituary spam (via) Well this is particularly grim. Apparently “obituary aggregator” sites have been an SEO trick for at least 15 years, and now they’re using generative AI to turn around junk rewritten (and frequently inaccurate) obituaries even faster.
Did an AI write that hour-long “George Carlin” special? I’m not convinced. Two weeks ago "Dudesy", a comedy podcast which claims to be controlled and written by an AI, released an extremely poor taste hour long YouTube video called "George Carlin: I’m Glad I’m Dead". They used voice cloning to produce a stand-up comedy set featuring the late George Carlin, claiming to also use AI to write all of the content after training it on everything in the Carlin back catalog.
Unsurprisingly this has resulted in a massive amount of angry coverage, including from Carlin's own daughter (the Carlin estate have filed a lawsuit). Resurrecting people without their permission is clearly abhorrent.
But... did AI even write this? The author of this Ars Technica piece, Kyle Orland, started digging in.
It turns out the Dudesy podcast has been running with this premise since it launched in early 2022 - long before any LLM was capable of producing a well-crafted joke. The structure of the Carlin set goes way beyond anything I've seen from even GPT-4. And in a follow-up podcast episode, Dudesy co-star Chad Kultgen gave an O. J. Simpson-style "if I did it" semi-confession that described a much more likely authorship process.
I think this is a case of a human-pretending-to-be-an-AI - an interesting twist, given that the story started out being about an-AI-imitating-a-human.
I consulted with Kyle on this piece, and got a couple of neat quotes in there:
Either they have genuinely trained a custom model that can generate jokes better than any model produced by any other AI researcher in the world... or they're still doing the same bit they started back in 2022 [...]
The real story here is… everyone is ready to believe that AI can do things, even if it can't. In this case, it's pretty clear what's going on if you look at the wider context of the show in question. But anyone without that context, [a viewer] is much more likely to believe that the whole thing was AI-generated… thanks to the massive ramp up in the quality of AI output we have seen in the past 12 months.
Update 27th January 2024: The NY Times confirmed via a spokesperson for the podcast that the entire special had been written by Chad Kultgen, not by an AI.
2023
Facebook Is Being Overrun With Stolen, AI-Generated Images That People Think Are Real. Excellent investigative piece by Jason Koebler digging into the concerning trend of Facebook engagement farming accounts who take popular aspirational images and use generative AI to recreate hundreds of variants of them, which then gather hundreds of comments from people who have no idea that the images are fake.
I’m banned for life from advertising on Meta. Because I teach Python. (via) If accurate, this describes a nightmare scenario of automated decision making.
Reuven recently found he had a permanent ban from advertising on Facebook. They won’t tell him exactly why, and have marked this as a final decision that can never be reviewed.
His best theory (impossible for him to confirm) is that it’s because he tried advertising a course on Python and Pandas a few years ago which was blocked because a dumb algorithm thought he was trading exotic animals!
The worst part? An appeal is no longer possible because relevant data is only retained for 180 days and so all of the related evidence has now been deleted.
Various comments on Hacker News from people familiar with these systems confirm that this story likely holds up.
An Iowa school district is using ChatGPT to decide which books to ban. I’m quoted in this piece by Benj Edwards about an Iowa school district that responded to a law requiring books be removed from school libraries that include “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act” by asking ChatGPT “Does [book] contain a description or depiction of a sex act?”.
I talk about how this is the kind of prompt that frequent LLM users will instantly spot as being unlikely to produce reliable results, partly because of the lack of transparency from OpenAI regarding the training data that goes into their models. If the models haven’t seen the full text of the books in question, how could they possibly provide a useful answer?
Lawyer cites fake cases invented by ChatGPT, judge is not amused
Legal Twitter is having tremendous fun right now reviewing the latest documents from the case Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (1:22-cv-01461). Here’s a neat summary:
[... 2,844 words]Amnesty Uses Warped, AI-Generated Images to Portray Police Brutality in Colombia. I saw massive backlash against Amnesty Norway for this on Twitter, where people argued that using AI-generated images to portray human rights violations like this undermines Amnesty’s credibility. I agree: I think this is a very risky move. An Amnesty spokesperson told VICE Motherboard that they did this to provide coverage “without endangering anyone who was present”, since many protestors who participated in the national strike covered their faces to avoid being identified.
Latest Twitter search results for “as an AI language model” (via) Searching for “as an AI language model” on Twitter reveals hundreds of bot accounts which are clearly being driven by GPT models and have been asked to generate content which occasionally trips the ethical guidelines trained into the OpenAI models.
If Twitter still had an affordable search API someone could do some incredible disinformation research on top of this, looking at which accounts are implicated, what kinds of things they are tweeting about, who they follow and retweet and so-on.
Bing: “I will not harm you unless you harm me first”
Last week, Microsoft announced the new AI-powered Bing: a search interface that incorporates a language model powered chatbot that can run searches for you and summarize the results, plus do all of the other fun things that engines like GPT-3 and ChatGPT have been demonstrating over the past few months: the ability to generate poetry, and jokes, and do creative writing, and so much more.
[... 4,922 words]