[9wzYQbTYsAIc]

> How do you propose we do that?

One technique, like all the other self-moderation that you can do on HN: stop upvoting and commenting on content that you don’t want to see boosted.

[lamontcg]

People already upvote fairly bland comments which reinforce common beliefs, so AIs which can distill popular sentiment and regurgitate it very readibly will get wildly upvoted on any social media platform.

Most humans don't like too much creativity and they want ideas that they agree with.

Wonder if the death of social media is more a descent into AI generated inane and bland commentary.

[wizeman]

> One technique, like all the other self-moderation that you can do on HN: stop upvoting and commenting on content that you don’t want to see boosted.

But isn't that what most people are presumably doing already?

I guess my question was more intended to be: how do you differentiate between content generated by humans vs machines?

At some point, we might not be able to. Or even if we can, it could actually result in a worse experience, if machines can generate better content.

[9wzYQbTYsAIc]

A few years ago there was a US Congressional Hearing [1] about how to handle deepfakes (OpenAI had a representative on the panel).

There was some deep discussion about that topic.

For example: even if all authentic content had an embedded steganographic watermark, how do you reliably authenticate recordings of recordings or otherwise degraded copies of authentic content?

[1] https://intelligence.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Docu...

[tetris11]

Voting with your wallet only works if a large portion of consumers both agree and understand your point of view

[hgsgm]

"Ignore it" has never been a solution to "other people misbehaving and destroying shared spaces".