Engagement is eyeballs looking at ads

> uses ai slop to illustrate it

For me it's some kind of cartoon with the caption "Great comic funny " and sometimes "funny short film" (even though it's a picture)

Like, Meta has to know this is happening. Do they really think this is what will keep their userbase? And nobody would think it's just a little weird?

Edit: itt: brain, dead, and fascist apologist Facebook Earth, who just refuse to accept that their platform is one of the biggest advent of Nazi fascism in this country, and they are all 100% complicit.

This is some Facebook quality content you're bringing to us here. It's so great seeing this kind of posts on my feed first thing in the morning. Just shows that it's not just AI poisoning our social media platforms.

Seems like an appropriate use of the tech

AI can put together all that personal data and create very detailed profiles on everyone, automatically. From that data, an Ai can add a bunch of attributes that are very likely to be true as well, based on what the person is doing every day, working, education, gender, social life, mobile data location, bills etc etc.

This is like having a person follow every user around 24 hours per day, combined with a psychologist to interpret and predict the future.

It's worth a lot of money of course.

colloquially, no one enjoys a pedant

But if half of the engagement is from AI, isnt that a grift on advertisers? Why should I pay for an ad on Facebook that is going to be "seen" by AI agents? AI don't buy products (yet?)

The most annoying part of that is the shitty render. I actually have an account on one of those AI image generating sites, and I enjoy using it. If you're not satisfied with the image, just roll a few more times, maybe tweak the prompt or the starter image, and try again. You can get some very cool-looking renders if you give a damn. Case in point:

yes, exactly.

... unless it's AI masquerading as eyeballs looking at ads.

Keep in mind this is for AI generated TEXT, not the images everyone is talking about in this thread.

Also they used an automated tool, all of which have very high error rates, because detecting AI text is a fundamentally impossible task

Probably on par with the junk human users are posting

this is awesome!

A friend of mine has made this with your described method:

PS: the laptop on the illustration in the article! Someone did not want pay for high end model and did not want to to take any extra time neither…

Well, maybe it is the taste of people still being there.. I mean, you have to be at least a little bit strange, if you are still on facebook…

*where you think they sourced from there, you have no proof other than seeing ghosts everywhere.

Not get me wrong, fact checking posts is important, but you have no evidence if it is AI, human brain fart or targeted disinformations ‍️

Hmm, "the junk human users are posting", or "the human junk users are posting"? We are talking about Facebook here, after all.

Have you ever successfully berated a stranger into doing what you wanted them to do?

AI does give itself away over "longer" posts, and if the tool makes about an equal number of false positives to false negatives then it should even itself out in the long run. (I'd have liked more than 9K "tests" for it to average out, but even so.) If they had the edit history for the post, which they didn't, then it's more obvious. AI will either copy-paste the whole thing in in one go, or will generate a word at a time at a fairly constant rate. Humans will stop and think, go back and edit things, all of that.

I was asked to do some job interviews recently; the tech test had such an "animated playback", and the difference between a human doing it legitimately and someone using AI to copy-paste the answer was surprisingly obvious. The tech test questions were nothing to do with the job role at hand and were causing us to select for the wrong candidates completely, but that's more a problem with our HR being blindly in love with AI and "technical solutions to human problems".

"Absolute certainty" is impossible, but balance of probabilities will do if you're just wanting an estimate like they have here.

I have no idea whether the probabilities are balanced. They claim 5% was AI even before chatgpt was released, which seems pretty off. No one was using LLMs before chatgpt went viral except for researchers.