Using real member accounts to post the fake AI content is so much worse.
I can’t even imagine the thought process that led to thinking it was a good idea to generate fake posts but assign them to real users. If they were going to fake posts, why not fake the users, too? They turned one bad decision into a much worse decision.
It must be sad to see your proud little corner of the internet decline in popularity, but this move took whatever positive historical vibes it had and lit them on fire.
Seemingly that can be found here: physicsforums [dot] com/threads/official-response-to-allegations-of-ai-misuse-in-pf.1078532/
> During the past several months, to counter declining engagement, I experimented with generative AI, intending to add value to "thin threads", especially those with 0 replies.
> For experiment #3, I used real accounts that I considered to be decade-old spammers as best I could tell, but I can't be 100% certain. I categorically regret and reject such a shameful and unethical decision.
(that website also modifies your clipboard when you copy stuff, big fuck you to the site owner, seemingly lacking any sort of guiding compass, good riddance to them)
Which is to say the Internet can be "dead" without being filled with undetectable or detectable fake posts, not that fake posts help things.
Also this is a good example of the trend that has already been ongoing on HN since 2022. I think one other long-lasting HNer is working on a similar analysis of HN at the moment.
bmacho•2d ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42816284 - Jan 24, 2025 | 154 comments
bmacho•1h ago
It's ironic because the article (and many comments in the previous submission) are about how one shouldn't mess with user data to show fake engagement!