A group of AI researchers from the Univ of Zurich just got caught running an unauthorized psych experiment with AI on a main communication platform

[LuvOrlando]

Well this is something, not exactly unexpected but completely unconscionable that a school thinks this is ok. I often wonder how often we all come in contact with this sort of thing, apparently there are no rules :/

Reminds me of the JK Rowling line from a Chamber of Secrets, "Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain."

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/reddiit-researchers-ai-bots-rcna203597

How long has this been around? Only a year or so... yikes

 

[Mommb]

I understand why this was wrong and why the moderators on the chat board were upset about it, because it was against the terms of the site. However, it does not appear that the bots actually hurt anyone. The experiment was in a forum dedicated to explaining positions, and that’s what the bots did.

It is common for online posters in anonymous forums to say things they wouldn’t say when talking to someone they know, to stir up debate or just to see what happens. How is using a chat bot in this case significantly different from a human poster saying something to see what happens?

I am more concerned when AI bots are used to provide specific information, as now happens with some prompts I put into Google. If the information the AI gathers (for example, about health care or legal issues) is incorrect, it can lead to real harm.

 

[_19disnA]

It is common for online posters in anonymous forums to say things they wouldn’t say when talking to someone they know, to stir up debate or just to see what happens. How is using a chat bot in this case significantly different from a human poster saying something to see what happens?

I agree. To some extent that happens on this site as well !!!

How ironic that people on some social media site would be upset when someone/something tries to 'influence' their opinion................LOL. Phony people on social media (AI or some other type) have been an issue for a long time. Don't use social media, but from many other articles I have seen over the years, Reddit doesn't sound like a site I would ever want to use. If you participate on some clearly biased social media site, that seems like something that comes with the territory. Wasn't part of the reason Musk originally tried buying twitter was all of the fake profiles he claimed the site had?

 

[PollyannaMom]

I'm not a fan of "unsupervised AI" at all, but I'm also not surprised that it happened. I'm pretty sure I've even seen bot posts here.

 

[_19disnA]

Yes, have been a few bots posting here at times. Usually it is quite obvious, their profile is brand new and they post on some thread that has been inactive for a few years................LOL. Most seem to be a clumsy attempt to advertise some other website then I see they disappear (or get banned) after a few days. Their awkward use of grammar also makes them easy to spot. Real people don't talk that way !!!

 

[LuvOrlando]

Seems this issue is proof that the media just creates problems that humans don't really care about, well either that or media can make people appear to care about things they do not actually care about.

Back in 2016 there was unimaginable hysteria over how FB influenced people in elections that lasted years and now here we are in 2025 and news like this, which is actually quite serious comparatively, doesn't get so much as a flinch. Interesting

Makes no sense, weird times we live in.

 

[tvguy]

Seems this issue is proof that the media just creates problems that humans don't really care about, well either that or media can make people appear to care about things they do not actually care about.

Back in 2016 there was unimaginable hysteria over how FB influenced people in elections that lasted years and now here we are in 2025 and news like this, which is actually quite serious comparatively, doesn't get so much as a flinch. Interesting

Makes no sense, weird times we live in.

Media? These were "educators"

 

[LuvOrlando]

Media? These were "educators"

Not talking about the people who do it, talking about the potential threat of a thing.

In 2016 the threat was supposedly monumental and now it is not even a sigh

 

[tvguy]

Not talking about the people who do it, talking about the potential threat of a thing.

In 2016 the threat was supposedly monumental and now it is not even a sigh

Just a reflection of how society views things now.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Just a reflection of how society views things now.

Very true. Still there is a lesson in there about how meaningless even the biggest uproars are because maybe people are far more apathetic than they seem at any moment in time. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that people do actually have long memories and 90% of the upset is fictitious so the news whips up make believe outrage all by itself with no grounding in truth of sentiment. Is the news nothing more than a weather report of feelsies predicting endless storms that never happen? Maybe

 

[tvguy]

Very true. Still there is a lesson in there about how meaningless even the biggest uproars are because maybe people are far more apathetic than they seem at any moment in time. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that people do actually have long memories and 90% of the upset is fictitious so the news whips up make believe outrage all by itself with no grounding in truth of sentiment. Is the news nothing more than a weather report of feelsies predicting endless storms that never happen? Maybe

Media doesn't whip anything up. The just show what people are doing and saying.

 

[lanejudy]

Media doesn't whip anything up. The just show what people are doing and saying.

I disagree. Media often hypes up a story that might otherwise be ignored by most of the general public and/or may be a one-sided opinion. Headlines for print or ads for tv news, etc.

 

[sam_gordon]

I disagree. Media often hypes up a story that might otherwise be ignored by most of the general public and/or may be a one-sided opinion. Headlines for print or ads for tv news, etc.

And it's nothing new, been going on for at least decades. "10 Things in your kitchen that will kill you!" I'm not sure when it happened, but "making money" became more of a priority than "distributing news". And it's a vicious cycle. News organizations try to figure out what people WANT to see/read, drawing more eyeballs, bringing in more money. Sure, they can just do stories they think are important and people NEED to see/read, but if people don't actually want to partake, ratings drop and therefore money does.

You'd think after so many decades of this being the case, viewers/readers would be more discriminating in what they allow to get them upset.

 

[tvguy]

And it's nothing new, been going on for at least decades. "10 Things in your kitchen that will kill you!" I'm not sure when it happened, but "making money" became more of a priority than "distributing news". And it's a vicious cycle. News organizations try to figure out what people WANT to see/read, drawing more eyeballs, bringing in more money. Sure, they can just do stories they think are important and people NEED to see/read, but if people don't actually want to partake, ratings drop and therefore money does.

You'd think after so many decades of this being the case, viewers/readers would be more discriminating in what they allow to get them upset.

Very disappointed in this view. However, I understand many people these days include Youtubers, Nextdoor, Twitter, Blue Sky "news" sources .....so called influencers in with traditional Journalists. They have none of the standards but get lumped in with them. Certainly Journalists aren't perfect. But I find it troubling that my work and ethics of 46 years are being compared to someone with an agenda broadcasting from their basement on their iPhone

 

[sam_gordon]

Very disappointed in this view. However, I understand many people these days include Youtubers, Nextdoor, Twitter, Blue Sky "news" sources .....so called influencers in with traditional Journalists. They have none of the standards but get lumped in with them. Certainly Journalists aren't perfect. But I find it troubling that my work and ethics of 46 years are being compared to someone with an agenda broadcasting from their basement on their iPhone

And you forget, I worked in local broadcasting for 30+ years, the first 10 in news. You can't tell me your news department didn't do what they could to try to increase ratings. Whether it was doing "special series" to run during sweeps periods (before meter boxes took over) to focusing on specific viewers (whether it's sports fans or a certain demographic).

It's a fine line and a judgement call... you want to do stories that people want AND do stories they need, but you have a limited amount of time.

 

[tvguy]

And you forget, I worked in local broadcasting for 30+ years, the first 10 in news. You can't tell me your news department didn't do what they could to try to increase ratings. Whether it was doing "special series" to run during sweeps periods (before meter boxes took over) to focusing on specific viewers (whether it's sports fans or a certain demographic).

It's a fine line and a judgement call... you want to do stories that people want AND do stories they need, but you have a limited amount of time.

Of course we did special sweeps series during ratings. All I can say is over the years as new employees and managers came in from other markets, a common comment was ....why we didn't do "targeted" series. Almost all our sweeps pieces involved weeks of production and travel, much of it international. At ANY of the three network affiliates (no Fox in those days). At my first station, we got our first "outsider" as News Director right before November sweeps. He saw a few wisps of fog on the way to work, and ordered all us Producers to lead our newscasts with live shots from the airport for the entire month. He was surprised at the pushback from staff. He was surprised that the "fog" he saw was having zero impact on flights......or ability to fly our station helicopter......he was surprised at the pushback from viewers.....and as luck would have it, it was our first book as a metered market. We got a spike the first week of the book, but viewers caught on it was a nothing burger When the ratings came out in December......both the Nielson and Arbitron numbers slipped. The other stations were delighted. Our owner was not and made it clear to the ND we were not to attempt cheap tricks to lure viewers again.

 

[sam_gordon]

Of course we did special sweeps series during ratings. All I can say is over the years as new employees and managers came in from other markets, a common comment was ....why we didn't do "targeted" series. Almost all our sweeps pieces involved weeks of production and travel, much of it international. At ANY of the three network affiliates (no Fox in those days). At my first station, we got our first "outsider" as News Director right before November sweeps. He saw a few wisps of fog on the way to work, and ordered all us Producers to lead our newscasts with live shots from the airport for the entire month. He was surprised at the pushback from staff. He was surprised that the "fog" he saw was having zero impact on flights......or ability to fly our station helicopter......he was surprised at the pushback from viewers.....and as luck would have it, it was our first book as a metered market. We got a spike the first week of the book, but viewers caught on it was a nothing burger When the ratings came out in December......both the Nielson and Arbitron numbers slipped. The other stations were delighted. Our owner was not and made it clear to the ND we were not to attempt cheap tricks to lure viewers again.

You just proved my point... ratings drive what stories get covered. If a news organization covers stories they think the viewers NEED, but the viewers don't WANT, ratings drop. Extremely stupid ND who sees fog and decides every newscast for a month needs a live shot at the airport.

 

[tvguy]

You just proved my point... ratings drive what stories get covered. If a news organization covers stories they think the viewers NEED, but the viewers don't WANT, ratings drop. Extremely stupid ND who sees fog and decides every newscast for a month needs a live shot at the airport.

A mistake made just one at that station.

 

[tvguy]

You just proved my point... ratings drive what stories get covered. If a news organization covers stories they think the viewers NEED, but the viewers don't WANT, ratings drop. Extremely stupid ND who sees fog and decides every newscast for a month needs a live shot at the airport.

As fate would have it, an anchor who worked here at two different stations over 40 years just passed away. A file interview with him kind of summed up this market...."Doing stories that viewers would not normally see"
I am sorry you never got to experience that time work environment.