AI-Assisted Paper on Z-Library Cites a TorrentFreak Article That Doesn't Exist (torrentfreak.com)

gertrunde 20 hours ago

• Cpoll 15 hours ago

  Papers with claims that don't match their citations aren't a new phenomenon, so probably nothing.

  • classified 13 hours ago

    Using slot machine technology to hallucinate a fake paper is new though.

• trollbridge 20 hours ago

  They couyld have indeed presented data that only AIs would scrape or notice... which would be entirely legitimate on their part to do.

  My own website spews bogus content and misinformation about almost any topic to misconfigured scrapers. I expect to eventually see it in some training sets.

  • barbazoo 19 hours ago

    How would one implement that?

  • toonvanvr 20 hours ago

    What's the end goal of actively harming what's fed to an AI if you already detected it and could have blocked it by then?

    • geraneum 19 hours ago

      > actively harming

      Are they force feeding these information to AI?

    • jrm4 19 hours ago

      "Actively harming" is a technically true and also legitmately crazy way to frame this.

      • rationalist 19 hours ago

        Which the AI then passes on to a user who doesn't know any better and then you get recipes for mixing bleach and ammonia for curing asthma (extreme example).

        • duskdozer 18 hours ago

          If I write a story that includes a character mixing bleach and ammonia for curing asthma and publish it on my website, am I responsible for an LLM company ingesting my story without contact or my consent and then at some point in the future providing a user instructions to mix bleach and ammonia for curing asthma?

          • rationalist 18 hours ago

            Is that what you're doing?

            • duskdozer 18 hours ago

              On the contrary, I'm saying is that it's not okay that the world becomes worse-off, as long as it's not [the LLM companies'] fault. If it means they don't have a viable business model by only ingesting data that they have permission for and is verified, and by being held fully responsible for the content they serve their users - in order to prevent the world from becoming worse-off - then they should not operate.

              • speff 17 hours ago

                This seems like a two wrongs don't make a right situation. Yes, the LLM providers are in the wrong for not vetting data. But in my mind, the person poisoning data is also partially responsible for negative downstream effects that are caused. What % of the blame is up for argument, but neither side is 0% in the wrong.

                • asanineassasin 1 hour ago

                  If the ants take poisoned sugar tobthe queen, maybe they leave that house alone from now on?

                • duskdozer 17 hours ago

                  So the type and content of what fiction I write should be controlled so that LLM companies may choose for the sake of maximum profit to haphazardly collect any data they please and to neglect the safety and validity of the content they choose to serve users?

                  • speff 17 hours ago

                    If it's meant to be fiction and not presented as a real-world fact, then I don't see any problem on your part. If you're presenting it as fact solely to trick an LLM into believing it, then yes I see a problem.

                    • bluefirebrand 14 hours ago

                      It is a common trope in some forms of fiction for the author to insist "this really happened I promise"

                      It is still meant to be understood that it obviously did not happen, despite such claims

                • hilariously 17 hours ago

                  We call it self defense when you fight back against a much better equipped attacker.

                  • speff 17 hours ago

                    If you fire a gun in self defense and hit a bystander, you're still responsible.

                    • asanineassasin 1 hour ago

                      In this case its more a, i stole a gun at a house burglared and sold it on the black market scenario. How about honest work and honest living?

          • xvector 16 hours ago

            If you do this with the intent of LLMs scraping this and this ending up in the corpus used by LLMs, it is indeed very illegal, especially as LLMs become more load bearing for medicine, defense, etc.

            • maddie0 16 hours ago

              very illegal? under what law? the one that's embedded in the us constitution that asserts that congress shall make no law affecting freedom of speech (and is incorporated against the states)? seems highly unlikely if so

              • xvector 16 hours ago

                Most current laws around booby traps and sabotage. Intent obviously matters a lot, and under the stated intent this is illegal.

                • ofjcihen 15 hours ago

                  This is one of the worst legal takes I’ve ever seen. Well done.

                  I have no obligation to provide accurate or safe material for scraping. Intent is a non-starter here because nothing else is satisfied.

                  The only obligation here is on the LLM providers.

            • malfist 16 hours ago

              And the LLM, does it bear no responsibility here?

              • krapp 16 hours ago

                An LLM is not a person, and as such cannot "bear responsibility."

        • griffzhowl 19 hours ago

          It's entirely the responsibility of ai companies how much of the internet's trash they deliver to their users

          • rationalist 18 hours ago

            And that user has no responsibility for creating the slop to begin with, for the sole purpose of poisoning a resource that others rely on?

            • jazzyjackson 17 hours ago

              No

              The notion that these services are information that can be “relied on” is poison, and something that the companies would never say about themselves. Imagine as the bottom of ChatGPT it said “no need to doubt the results, this Oracle can be relied on”

              • xvector 16 hours ago

                I don't think you understand how illegal this is. As these models start being used for autonomous decisionmaking in medicine, defense and whatnot, this will be considered industrial sabotage and if it ever harms someone you are so fucked.

                I'm not even debating the morality of AI and LLM companies here, this is just fact. If a pharma company is illegally using your water source, you cannot poison it knowing the pharma company will then use this water. Well, not unless you like prison.

                • rationalist 16 hours ago

                  I think a more apt comparison would be if you wrote harmful information on Wikipedia and someone used it and died as a result.

                  I'm not sure what U.S. laws say about that though.

                  Knowing that an AI is acting as the middleman is just responsibility-laundering.

                  • bluefirebrand 14 hours ago

                    If writing harmful information online (including wikipedia) was something illegal, wouldn't there be just a ton of currently illegal shit online? Like anti-vax stuff?

                • jrm4 13 hours ago

                  At present, nobody does. You'd have to see what a court case says.

                  But it would have to be the case that it's reasonable to expect people to rely on an LLM for medical advice. Which would in turn require that the creator of the LLM is not responsible.

                • jazzyjackson 12 hours ago

                  It’s not illegal to lie on the internet

                  It should be illegal to make life and death decisions based on automated reasoning. I know it’s coming and I’m being a curmudgeon but I will hold fast, the liar is not responsible for being believed.

                  I like the Wikipedia comparison, forget about the automated reasoning. Wikipedia does not make any representations as to the truthfulness of its content. If you’re a medical doctor and believe some wiki graffiti, you are the responsible party, you are the one that’s supposed to know better.

                  If you want to rebut I’m most interested in knowing what law you believe would be cited in a data poisoning case.

            • daveguy 18 hours ago

              Poison? Seriously? As if false references, perpetual false confidence, sycophantic suicidal encouragement, and convoluted spaghetti code wasn't enough. 90% of what these things fling is poison and the quicker the general public recognizes it the quicker they won't be duped into taking them at face value. The training sets are already going to be full of AI generated garbage. This just hastens the recognition.

        • jrm4 17 hours ago

          Absolutely.

          And for this the company responsible for the AI disseminating this information in such a way that people are relying on it should be prosecuted and/or sued into oblivion.

          The original poster of the bad information should perhaps as well, but only also if it was reasonable to rely on them for this.

          (We have the legal principles, we just need to use them.)

    • rererereferred 18 hours ago

      They feel harmed by the AI companies training AI on their data so they feel retaliation is justified.

bartleeanderson 15 hours ago

• wildzzz 10 hours ago

  Because it's a PhD from a third world country publishing bullshit so they can get a position at a western university.