AI-Assisted Paper on Z-Library Cites a TorrentFreak Article That Doesn't Exist(torrentfreak.com)
72 pointsby TangerineDream5 hours ago5 comments
  • gertrunde3 hours ago
    The mischievous part of me wonders what would happen if torrentfreak wrote a matching article, with content that messes with the paper...
    • trollbridge3 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.

      • barbazoo2 hours ago
        How would one implement that?
      • toonvanvr3 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?
        • geraneum3 hours ago
          > actively harming

          Are they force feeding these information to AI?

        • jrm42 hours ago
          "Actively harming" is a technically true and also legitmately crazy way to frame this.
          • rationalist2 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).
            • duskdozer2 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?
              • rationalistan hour ago
                Is that what you're doing?
                • duskdozeran hour 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.
                  • speff38 minutes 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.
                    • duskdozer20 minutes 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?
                    • hilariously34 minutes ago
                      We call it self defense when you fight back against a much better equipped attacker.
            • jrm422 minutes 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.)

            • griffzhowl2 hours ago
              It's entirely the responsibility of ai companies how much of the internet's trash they deliver to their users
              • rationalistan hour 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?
                • jazzyjackson26 minutes 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”

                • daveguyan hour 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.
        • rererereferredan hour ago
          They feel harmed by the AI companies training AI on their data so they feel retaliation is justified.
  • kome4 hours ago
    it happens all the time - it's bad, but i wonder if it is newsworthy anymore. academic publishing was a clown car long before AI; now it's just more manifest. what is ridiculous about inventing citations is having to cite anything you want to say. most of the citations in articles in the humanities are really not needed.
    • bombcar4 hours ago
      That's the dirty secret - the whole thing is stuff being written for nobody to read and AI is just manifesting that.
      • nkrisc3 hours ago
        It appears that even the “authors” don’t read it.
    • nickphx3 hours ago
      except it is all a clown car.
  • yuan-nvwaan hour ago
    [flagged]
  • henry0213an hour ago
    [dead]
  • toccter3 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • dearingan hour ago
      - journals argue pay walls pay for peer review and are concerned about shadow libraries to train AI

      - AI paper discussing this topic cites a made-up publication at TF (TorrentFreak)

      - TF looks closer and sees that 10/44 citations are suspect in said paper

      - journal published paper without thorough peer review

      chef's kiss

    • cowlevelan hour ago
      This account is an LLM karmabot
    • demibabsan hour ago
      Thank you Claude
    • tyclaudesqvzxbk3 hours ago
      [dead]