News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by peterlk on Sunday October 26, 2025 @10:25AM (#45712155)
LLMs can now detect garbage much more cheaply than humans can. This might increase cost slightly for the companies that own the AIs, but it almost certainly will not result in hiring human reviewers
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF on Sunday October 26, 2025 @11:04AM (#45712463)
> LLMs can now detect garbage much more cheaply than humans can.

Off the top of my head, I don't think this is true for training data. I could be wrong, but it seems very fallible to let GPT-5 be the source of ground truth for GPT-6.

Re:You Should Feed the Bots by _heimdall on Sunday October 26, 2025 @10:50PM (#45716935)
I dotn think an LLM even can detect garbage during a training run. While training the system is only tasked with predicting the next token in the training set, it isn't trying to reason about the validity of the training set itself.
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by nl on Monday October 27, 2025 @04:34AM (#45718579)
Llm-as-a-judge has been working well for years now.

RL from LLMs works.

Re:You Should Feed the Bots by flir on Monday October 27, 2025 @07:16PM (#45727472)
You can triage with an LLM, at least. Throw away the obvious junk, have a human look at anything doubtful.
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by markus_zhang on Sunday October 26, 2025 @10:51AM (#45712365)
What about garbage that are difficult to tell from truth?

For example, say I have an AD&D website, how does AI tell whether a piece of FR history is canon or not? Yeah I know it's a bit extreme, but you get the idea.

Re:You Should Feed the Bots by ElectroBuffoon on Monday October 27, 2025 @02:40AM (#45718025)
If the same garbage is repeated enough all over the net, the AIs will suffer brain rot. GIGO and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45656223

Next step will be to mask the real information with typ0canno. Or parts of the text, otherwise search engines will fail miserably. Also squirrel anywhere so dogs look in the other direction. Up.

Imagine filtering the meaty parts with something like /usr/games/rasterman:

> what about garbage thta are dififult to tell from truth?

> for example.. say i have an ad&d website.. how does ai etll whether a piece of fr history is canon ro not? yeah ik now it's a bit etreme.. but u gewt teh idea...

or /usr/games/scramble:

> Waht aobut ggaabre taht are dficiuflt to tlel form ttruh?

> For eapxlme, say I hvae an AD&D wisbete, how deos AI tlel wthheer a pciee of FR hsiotry is caonn or not? Yaeh I konw it's a bit emxetre, but you get the ieda.

Sadly punny humans will have a harder time decyphering the mess and trying to get the silly references. But that is a sacrifice Titans are willing to make for their own good.

ElectroBuffoon over. bttzzzz

Re:You Should Feed the Bots by nl on Monday October 27, 2025 @04:35AM (#45718587)
You realise that LLMs are already better at deciphering this than humans?
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by ElectroBuffoon on Monday October 27, 2025 @05:13AM (#45718796)
What cost do they incur while tokenizing highly mistyped text? Woof. To later decide real crap or typ0 cannoe.

Trying to remember the article that tested small inlined weirdness to get surprising output. That was the inspiration for the up up down down left right left right B A approach.

So far LLMs still mix command and data channels.

Re:You Should Feed the Bots by 63stack on Monday October 27, 2025 @06:00AM (#45719137)
There are multiple people claiming this in this thread, but with no more than a "it doesn't work stop". Would be great to hear some concrete information.
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by michaelcampbell on Monday October 27, 2025 @08:12AM (#45720077)
Was saying this 3x in this thread necessary?
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by hasa on Monday October 27, 2025 @09:44AM (#45720986)
I thought it was a bot
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by 63stack on Monday October 27, 2025 @04:12PM (#45725719)
I'm just interested in opinions from all 3
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by nl on Monday October 27, 2025 @06:33AM (#45719357)
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by 63stack on Monday October 27, 2025 @06:50AM (#45719481)
I think OP is claiming that if enough people are using these obfuscators, the training data will be poisoned. The LLM being able to translate it right now is not a proof that this won't work, since it has enough "clean" data to compare against.
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by nl on Monday October 27, 2025 @07:17AM (#45719648)
If enough people are doing that then venacular English has changed to be like that.

And it still isn't a problem for LLMs. There is sufficient history for it to learn on, and in any case low resource language learning shows them better than humans at learning language patterns.

If it follows an approximate grammar then an LLM will learn from it.

Re:You Should Feed the Bots by 63stack on Monday October 27, 2025 @07:22AM (#45719688)
I don't mean people actually conversing like this on the internet, but using programs like what is in the article to feed it to the bots only.
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by nl on Monday October 27, 2025 @08:08AM (#45720045)
This is exactly like those search engine traps people implemented in the late 90s and is roughly as effective.

But sure.

Re:You Should Feed the Bots by 63stack on Monday October 27, 2025 @05:59AM (#45719120)
There are multiple people claiming this in this thread, but with no more than a "it doesn't work stop". Would be great to hear some concrete information.
Re:You Should Feed the Bots by bombcar on Monday October 27, 2025 @07:09AM (#45719608)
They can’t easily detect garbage; they can easily detect things that are outside the dataset (for some value of such).

Which means that real “new” things and random garbage could look quite similar.

Re:You Should Feed the Bots by nephrite on Monday October 27, 2025 @08:22AM (#45720153)
You're missing the point. The goal of garbage production is not to break the bots or poison LLMs, but to remove load from your own site. The author writes it in the article. He found that feeding bots garbage is the cheapest strategy, that's all.