|
| ▲ | 0x3f 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| You'll never win this battle, so why waste feelings and energy on it? That's where the internet is headed. There's no magical human verification technology coming to save us. |
| |
| ▲ | lrvick 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I can prove all contributions to stagex are by humans because we all belong to a 25 year old web of trust with 5444 endorser keys including most redhat, debian, ubuntu, and fedora maintainers, with all of our own maintainer keys in smartcards we tap to sign every review and commit, and we do background checks on every new maintainer. I am completely serious. We have always had a working proof of human system called Web of Trust and while everyone loves to hate on PGP (in spite of it using modern ECC crypto these days) it is the only widely deployed spec that solves this problem. https://kron.fi/en/posts/stagex-web-of-trust/ | | |
| ▲ | srmatto 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Can't you just instruct Claude Code to use your signing keys? I understand you may say "I won't." But my point is that someone can. |
| |
| ▲ | thih9 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Human verification technology absolutely exists. Give it some time and people who sell ai today are going to shoehorn it everywhere as the solution to the problem they are busy creating now. | |
| ▲ | j2kun 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Fatalism will also not fix anything. But I suppose death comes for us all, yes? Why do anything at all? | | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > But I suppose death comes for us all, yes? Why do anything at all? Wrong take. Death comes for us all, yes, so why hold back? Do you want to live forever? | |
| ▲ | MidnightRider39 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is the only relevant question. And it leads right to the next one which is “what is a good life?” But humans have a huge bias for action. I think generally doing less is better. | |
| ▲ | tombert 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I feel that fatalism, especially when people treat it as some sort of personal philosophy, is kind of lazy. It requires no effort to say "fuck this, nothing matters anyway", and then justify doing literally nothing. | | |
| ▲ | palmotea 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > I feel that fatalism, especially when people treat it as some sort of personal philosophy, is kind of lazy. I think a lot of fatalism is fake. It's really someone saying "I like this, and I want you to give up trying to change it." |
| |
| ▲ | WarmWash an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think "adapt or die" is the takeaway. | | |
| |
| ▲ | taurath 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s where THIS internet is headed. The future may involve a lot more of them I think. | |
| ▲ | SV_BubbleTime 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | IDK. I sort of like the idea that now instead of dead internet theory being a joke, that it’ll be a well known fact that a minority of people are not real and there is no point in engaging… I look forward to Social 3… where people have to meet face to face. | | |
| ▲ | sebastiennight 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | "minority"? This is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack | |
| ▲ | saltcured 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | How quickly would that meat-space renaissance spin through our whole cyberpunk heritage, speedrunning the same authentication challenges..? The cornucopia of gargoyles, living their best life as terminals for the machine. The strange p-zombies who don't show their gargoyle accessories visibly, but somehow still follow the script. Eventually the more insidious infiltrators, requiring a real Voight-Kampff test. |
| |
| ▲ | matkoniecz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Even if it is impossible to win, I am still feeling bad about it. And at this point it is more about how large space will be usable and how much will be bot-controlled wasteland. I prefer spaces important for me to survive. | | |
| ▲ | nslsm 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Feeling bad about something you can’t change is bad for your mental health. | | |
| |
| ▲ | ex-aws-dude 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's why I stopped brushing my teeth, I can't clean every crevice perfectly so what's the point? | |
| ▲ | xyzal 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Magical human verification technology is called "your own private forum" in conjunction with "invite your friends" | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Until your friend writes a bot. Funny story, when I was younger I trained a basic text predictor deep learning model on all my conversations in a group chat I was in, it was surprisingly good at sounding like me and sometimes I'd use it to generate some text to submit to the chat. | | |
| ▲ | al_borland 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't see what the value of this would be. Why would I want to automate talking to my friends? If I'm not interested in talking with them, I could simply not do it. It also carries the risk of not actually knowing what was talked about or said, which could come up in real life and lead to issues. If a "friend" started using a bot to talk to me, they would not longer be considered a friend. That would be the end. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 15 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It was for fun, to see if it were possible and whether others could detect they were talking to a bot or not, you know, the hacker ethos and all. It's not meant to be taken seriously although looks like these days people unironically have LLM "friends." |
| |
| ▲ | paradox460 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I used to leave a megahal connected to my bouncer when I wasn't around |
|
| |
| ▲ | stackghost 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I am actively building non-magical human verification technology that doesn't require you uploading your retinal scans or ID to billionaires or incompetent outsourcing firms. | | |
| ▲ | lrvick 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | We already have it and we use it to validate the trusted human maintainer involvement behind the linux packages that power the entire internet: PGP Web Of Trust. Still works as designed and I still go to keysigning parties in person. | |
| ▲ | lynx97 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Great! Lets do the CAPTCHA-test: Will I, as a 100% blind user, be able to complete your process? | | |
| ▲ | stackghost an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think so? Can you use a smartphone? | | |
| ▲ | lrvick 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Not parent poster but I am a maintainer of software powering significant portions of the internet and prove my humanity with a 16 year old PGP key with thousands of transitive trust signatures formed through mostly in-person meetings, using IETF standards and keychain smartcards, as is the case for everyone I work with. But, I do not have an Android or iOS device as I do not use proprietary software, so a smartphone based solution would not work for me. Why re-invent the wheel? Invest in making PGP easier and keep the decades of trust building going anchoring humans to a web of trust that long predates human-impersonation-capable AI. |
|
| |
| ▲ | anonym29 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The technical implementation is the easy part. The hard part is achieving mass voluntary cooperation under adverse incentive schemes. | | |
| ▲ | stackghost an hour ago | parent [-] | | This is true, but I think there is a sizable (and growing) appetite for human-only spaces. |
| |
| ▲ | tlonny an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | how does it work? | | |
| |
| ▲ | keybored 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Negative sentiment towards technological destiny detected in human agent. | |
| ▲ | RockRobotRock 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >There's no magical human verification technology coming to save us. Except for the one Sam Altman is building. | | | |
| ▲ | jesse_dot_id 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I assume we're heading to a place where keyboards will all have biometric sensors on every key and measure weight fluctuations in keystrokes, actually. | | |
| ▲ | mr_00ff00 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That’s like having your security on the frontend. If someone owns the keyboard then they can fake those metrics and tell the server it is happening when it isn’t. That will be easy to beat. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mrlnstk 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But will this be released as a feature? For me it seems like it's an Anthropic internal tool to secretly contribute to public repositories to test new models etc. |
| |
| ▲ | BoppreH 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't care who is using it, I don't want LLMs pretending to be humans in public repos. Anthropic just lost some points with me for this one. EDIT: I just realized this might be used without publishing the changes, for internal evaluation only as you mentioned. That would be a lot better. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | skeledrew an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Heh, this is what people who are hostile against AI-generated contributions get. I always figured it'd happen soon enough, and here it is in the wild. Who knows where else it's happening... |
|
| ▲ | jen20 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Also unintentionally reveals something: > Write commit messages as a human developer would — describe only what the code change does. That's not what a commit message is for, that's what the diff is for. The commit message should explain WHY. Sadly not doing that likely does indeed make it appear more human... |
| |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, that was my reaction too. A shame they try to hide themselves, but even worse, the instructions to this "Fake Human" is wrong too! |
|
|
| ▲ | erisnet 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The first two zips I download today were 9.887.340 bytes,
why is yours 10.222.630 bytes? |
|
| ▲ | shaky-carrousel 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Write commit messages as a human developer would — describe only what the code change does. The undercover mode prompt was generated using AI. |
| |
| ▲ | kingstnap 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | All these companies use AIs for writing these prompts. But AI aren't actually very good at writing prompts imo. Like they are superficially good in that they seem to produce lots of vaguely accurate and specific text. And you would hope the specificity would mean it's good. But they sort of don't capture intent very well. Nor do they seem to understand the failure modes of AI. The "-- describe only what the code change does" is a good example. This is specifc but it also distinctly seems like someone who doesn't actually understand what makes AI writing obvious. If you compare that vs human written prose about what makes AI writing feel AI you would see the difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing The above actually feels like text from someone who has read and understands what makes AI writing AI. | | |
| ▲ | skeledrew an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | All the prompts I've ever written with Claude have always worked fine the first time. Only revised if the actual purpose changes, I left something out, etc. But also I tend to only write prompts as part of a larger session, usually near the end, so there's lots of context available to help with the writing. | |
| ▲ | briHass 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hey LLM, write me a system prompt that will avoid the common AI 'tells' or other idiosyncrasies that make it obvious that text or code output was generated by an AI/LLM. Use the referenced Wikipedia article as a must-avoid list, but do not consider it exhaustive. Add any derivations or modifications to these rules to catch 'likely' signals as well. There, sorted! |
| |
| ▲ | fleebee 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's not supposed to be surprising. They're dogfooding CC to develop CC. I assume any and every line in this repo is AI generated. |
|
|
| ▲ | sandos 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is my pet peeve with LLMs, they almost always fails to write like a normal human would. Mentioning logs, or other meta-things which is not at all interesting. |
| |
| ▲ | sgc 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I had a problem to fix and one not only mentioned these "logs", but went on about things like "config", "tests", and a bunch of other unimportant nonsense words. It even went on to point me towards the "manual". Totally robotic monstrosity. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | LelouBil 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Time to ask if the contributor know what a Capybara is as a new Turing test |
|
| ▲ | lazysheepherd 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 1) This seems to be for strictly Antrophic interal tooling
2) It does not "pretend to be human" it is instructed to "Write commit messages as a human developer would — describe only what the code change does." Since when "describe only what the code change does" is pretending to be human? You guys are just mining for things to moan about at this point. |
| |
| ▲ | BoppreH 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 1) It's not clear to me that this is only for internal tooling, as opposed to publishing commits on public GitHub repos. 2) Yes, it does explicitly say to pretend to be a human. From the link on my post: > NEVER include in commit messages or PR descriptions: > [...] > - The phrase "Claude Code" or any mention that you are an AI |
|
|
| ▲ | vips7L 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That whole “feature” is vile. |
