If anyone wants to know what subreddit, it’s r/changemyview. I remember seeing a ton of similar posts about controversial opinion ne and even now people are questioning Am I overreacting a lot and AITAH. AI posts in those kind of subs are seemingly pretty frequent.
‘The Worst Internet-Research Ethics Violation I Have Ever Seen’ | The most persuasive “people” on a popular subreddit turned out to be a front for a secret AI experiment.
Submitted 3 weeks ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
jonne@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
AI posts or just creative writing assignments.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Right. Subs like these are great fodder for people who just like to make shit up.
eRac@lemmings.world 3 weeks ago
This was comments, not posts. They were using a model to approximate the demographics of a poster, then using an LLM to generate a response counter to the posted view tailored to the demographics of the poster.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You’re right about this study. But, this research group isn’t the only one using LLMs to generate content on social media.
There are 100% posts that are bot created. Do you ever notice how, on places like Am I Overreacting or Am I the Asshole that a lot of the posts just so happen to hit all of the hot button issues all at once? Nobody’s life is that cliche, but it makes excellent engagement bait and the comment chain provides a huge amount of training data as the users argue over the various topics.
I use a local LLM, that I’ve fine tuned, to generate replies to people, who are obviously arguing in bad faith, in order to string them along and waste their time. It’s setup to lead the conversation, via red herrings and other various fallacies to the topic of good faith arguments and how people should behave in online spaces. It does this while picking out pieces of the conversation (and from the user’s profile) in order to chastise the person for their bad behavior. It would be trivial to change the prompt chains to push a political opinion rather than to just waste a person/bot’s time.
This is being done on under $2,000 worth of consumer hardware, by a barely competent progammer with no training in Psychology or propaganda. It’s terrifying to think of what you can do with a lot of resources and experts.
refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
AIO and AITAH are so obviously just AI posting. It’s all just a massive circlejerk of AI and people who don’t know they’re talking to AI agreeing with each other.
TwinTitans@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Like the 90s/2000s - don’t put personal information on the internet, don’t believe a damned thin on it either.
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Yeah, it’s amazing how quickly the “don’t trust anyone on the internet” mindset changed. The same boomers who were cautioning us against playing online games with friends are now the same ones sharing blatantly AI generated slop from strangers on Facebook as if it were gospel.
Serinus@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Back then it was just old people trying to groom 16 year olds. Now it’s a nation’s intelligence apparatus turning our citizens against each other and convincing them to destroy our country.
I wholeheartedly believe they’re here, too. Their primary function here is to discourage the left from voting, primarily by focusing on the (very real) failures of the Democrats while the other party is extremely literally the Nazi party.
Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
I feel like I learned more about the Internet and shit from Gen X people than from boomers. Though, nearly everyone on my dad’s side of the family, including my dad (a boomer), was tech literate, having worked in tech (my dad is a software engineer) and still continue to not be dumb about tech… Aside from thinking e-greeting cards are rad.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Social media broke so many people’s brains
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
I don’t believe you.
TwinTitans@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
As you shouldn’t.
taladar@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
I never liked the “don’t believe anything you read on the internet” line, it focuses too much on the internet without considering that you shouldn’t believe anything you read or hear elsewhere either, especially on divisive topics like politics.
You should evaluate information you receive from any source with critical thinking, consider how easy it is to make false claims (e.g. probably much harder for a single source if someone claims that the US president has been assassinated than if someone claims their local bus was late that one unspecified day at their unspecified location), who benefits from convincing you of the truth of a statement, is the statement consistent with other things you know about the world,…
madjo@feddit.nl 2 weeks ago
Nice try, AI
😄
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This research is good, valuable and desperately needed. The uproar online is predictable and could possibly help bring attention to the issue of LLM-enabled bots manipulating social media.
This research isn’t what you should get mad it. It’s pretty common knowledge online that Reddit is dominated by bots. Advertising bots, scam bots, political bots, etc.
Intelligence services of nation states and political actors seeking power are all running these kind of influence operations on social media, using bot posters to dominate the conversations about the topics that they want. This is pretty common knowledge in social media spaces. Go to any politically charged topic on international affairs and you will notice that something seems off, it’s hard to say exactly what it is… but if you’ve been active online for a long time you can recognize that something seems wrong.
We’ve seen how effective this manipulation is on changing the public view (see: Cambridge Analytica, or if you don’t know what that is watch ‘The Great Hack’ documentary) and so it is only natural to wonder how much more effective online manipulation is now that bad actors can use LLMs. This study is by a group of scientists who are trying to figure that out.
The only difference is that they’re publishing their findings in order to inform the public. Whereas Russia isn’t doing us the same favors.
Naturally, it is in the interest of everyone using LLMs to manipulate the online conversation that this kind of research is never done. Having this information public could lead to reforms, regulations and effective counter strategies. It is no surprise that you see a bunch of social media ‘users’ creating a huge uproar.
Most of you, who don’t work in tech spaces, may not understand just how easy and cheap it is to set something like this up. For a few million dollars and a small staff you could essentially dominate a large multi-million subscriber subreddit with whatever opinion you wanted to push. Bots generate variations of the opinion that you want to push, the bot accounts (guided by humans) downvote everyone else out of the conversation and, in addition, moderation power can be seized, stolen or bought to further control the conversation.
Or, wholly fabricated subreddits can be created. A few months prior to the US election there were several new subreddits which were created and catapulted to popularity despite just being a bunch of bots reposting news. Now those subreddits are high in the /all and /popular feeds, despite their moderators and a huge portion of the users being bots.
We desperately need this kind of study to keep from drowning in a sea of fake people who will tirelessly work to convince you of all manner of nonsense.
andros_rex@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Regardless of any value you might see from the research, it was not conducted ethically. Allowing unethical research to be published encourages further unethical research.
This flat out should not have passed review. There should be consequences.
deutros@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If the need was justified big enough and negative impact low enough, it could pass review. The lack of informed consent can be justified with sufficient need and if consent would impact the science. The burden is high but not impossible to overcome. This is an area with huge societal impact so I would consider an ethical case to be plausible.
FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Consequences? Sure. Does not cancel or falsify the results, though.
T156@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Conversely, while the research is good in theory, the data isn’t that reliable.
The subreddit has rules requiring users engage with everything as though it was written by real people in good faith. Users aren’t likely to point out a bot when the rules explicitly prevent them from doing that.
There wasn’t much of a good control either. The researchers were comparing themselves to the bots, so it could easily be that they themselves were less convincing, since they were acting outside of their area of expertise.
And that’s even before the whole ethical mess that is experimenting on people without their consent. Post-hoc consent is not informed consent, and that is the crux of human experimentation.
thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 2 weeks ago
Users aren’t likely to point out a bot when the rules explicitly prevent them from doing that.
In fact one user commented that he had his comment calling out one of the bots as a bot deleted by mods for breaking that rule
ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
The ethics violation is definitely bad, but their results are also concerning. They claim their AI accounts were 6 times more likely to persuade people into changing their minds compared to a real life person. AI has become an overpowered tool in the hands of propagandists.
jbloggs777@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
It would be naive to think this isn’t already in widespread use.
TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I mean that’s the point of research: to demonstrate real world problems and put it in more concrete terms so we can respond more effectively
ArchRecord@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
To be fair, I do believe their research was based on how convincing it was compared to other Reddit commenters, rather than say, an actual person you’d normally see doing the work for a government propaganda arm, with the training and skillset to effectively distribute propaganda.
Their assessment of how “convincing” it was seems to also have been based on upvotes, which if I know anything about how people use social media, and especially Reddit, are often given when a comment is only slightly read through, and people are often scrolling past without having read the whole thing. The bots may not have necessarily optimized for convincing people, but rather, just making the first part of the comment feel upvote-able over others, while the latter part of the comment was mostly ignored. I’d want to see more research on this, of course, since this seems like a major flaw in how they assessed outcomes.
This, of course, doesn’t discount the fact that AI models are often much cheaper to run than the salaries of human beings.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This, of course, doesn’t discount the fact that AI models are often much cheaper to run than the salaries of human beings.
And the fact that you can generate hundreds or thousands of them at the drop of a hat to bury any social media topic in highly convincing ‘people’ so that the average reader is more than likely going to read the opinion that you’re pushing and not the opinion of the human beings.
TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
The reason this is “The Worst Internet-Research Ethics Violation” is because it has exposed what Cambridge Analytica’s successors already realized and are actively exploiting. Just a few months ago it was literally Meta itself running AI accounts trying to pass off as normal users, and not an f-ing peep - why do people think they, the ones who enabled Cambridge Analytica, were trying this shit to begin with. The only difference now is that everyone doing it knows to do it as a “unaffiliated” anonymous third party.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
One of the Twitter leaks showed a user database that effectively had more users than there were people on earth with access to the Internet.
Before Elon bought the company he was trashing them on social media for being mostly bots. He’s obviously stopped that now that he was forced to buy it, but the fact that Twitter (and, by extension, all social spaces) are mostly bots remains.
tauren@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Just a few months ago it was literally Meta itself…
Well, it’s Meta. When it comes to science and academic research, they have rather strict rules and committees to ensure that an experiment is ethical.
FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
The headline is that they advertised beauty products to girls after they detected them deleting a selfie. No ethics or morals at all
thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 2 weeks ago
You may wish to reword. The unspecified “they” reads like you think Meta have strict ethical rules. Lol.
Meta have no ethics whatsoever, and yes I assume you meant universities have strict rules however the approval of this study marks even that as questionable
justdoitlater@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Reddit: Ban the Russian/Chinese/Israeli/American bots? Nope. Ban the Swiss researchers that are trying to study useful things? Yep
Ilandar@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Bots attempting to manipulate humans by impersonating trauma counselors or rape survivors isn’t useful. It’s dangerous.
endeavor@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Humans pretend to be experts infront of eachother and constantly lie on the internet every day.
Say what you want about 4chan but the disclaimer it had ontop of its page should be common sense to everyone on social media.
justdoitlater@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Sure, but still less dangerous of bots undermining our democracies and trying to destroy our social frabic.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 weeks ago
Welcome to the internet? Learn skepticism?
teamevil@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Holy Shit… This kind of shit is what ultimately broke Tim kaczynski… He was part of MKULTRA research, but instead of drugging him, they had a debater that was a prosecutor pretending to be a student… And would just argue against any point he had to see when he would break…
And that’s how you get the Unabomber folks.
AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Ted, not Tim.
teamevil@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You know I know you’re right but what makes me so frustrated is I was so worried about spelling his last name right I totally botched the first name…
Geetnerd@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I don’t condone what he did in any way, but he was a genius, and they broke his mind.
Listen to The Last Podcast on the Left’s episode on him.
A genuine tragedy.
teamevil@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You know when I was like 17 and they put out the manifesto to get him to stop attacking and I remember thinking oh it’s got a few interesting points.
But I was 17 and not that he doesn’t hit the nail on the head with some of the technological stuff if you really step back and think about it and this is what I couldn’t see at 17 it’s really just the writing of an incell… He couldn’t communicate with women had low self-esteem and classic nice guy energy…
Donkter@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This is a really interesting paragraph to me because I definitely think these results shouldn’t be published or we’ll only get more of these “whoopsie” experiments.
At the same time though, I think it is desperately important to research the ability of LLMs to persuade people sooner rather than later when they become even more persuasive and natural-sounding. The article mentions that in studies humans already have trouble telling the difference between AI written sentences and human ones.
FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
This is certainly not the first time this has happened. There’s nothing to stop people from asking ChatGPT et al to help them argue. I’ve done it myself, not letting it argue for me but rather asking it to find holes in my reasoning and that of my opponent. I never just pasted what it said.
I also had a guy post a ChatGPT response at me (he said that’s what it was) and although it had little to do with the point I was making, I reasoned that people must surely be doing this thousands of times a day and just not saying it’s AI.
To say nothing of state actors, “think tanks,” influence-for-hire operations, etc.
The description of the research in the article already conveys enough to replicate the experiment, at least approximately. Can anyone doubt this is commonplace, or that it has been for the last year or so?
Dasus@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’m pretty sure that only applies due to a majority of people being morons. There’s a vast gap between the 2% most intelligent, 1/50, and the average intelligence.
Also please put digital text on white on black instead of the other way around
angrystego@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I agree, but that doesn’t change anything, right? Even if you are in the 2% most intelligent and you’re somehow immune, you still have to live with the rest who do get influenced by AI. And they vote. So it’s never just a they problem.
SippyCup@feddit.nl 2 weeks ago
What? Intelligent people get fooled all the time. The NXIVM cult was made up mostly of reasonably intelligent women. Shit that motherfucker selected for intelligent women.
You’re not immune. Even if you were, you’re incredibly dependent on people of average to lower intelligence on a daily basis. Our planet runs on the average intelligence.
Dasus@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
black on white, ew
conicalscientist@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This is probably the most ethical you’ll ever see it. There are definitely organizations committing far worse experiments.
Over the years I’ve noticed replies that are far too on the nose. Probing just the right pressure points as if they dropped exactly the right breadcrumbs for me to respond to. I’ve learned to disengage at that point. It’s either they scrolled through my profile. Or as we now know it’s a literal psy-op bot. Already in the first case it’s not worth engaging with someone more invested than I am myself.
skisnow@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Yeah I was thinking exactly this.
It’s easy to point to reasons why this study was unethical, but the ugly truth is that bad actors all over the world are performing trials exactly like this all the time - do we really want the only people who know how this kind of manipulation works to be state psyop agencies, SEO bros, and astroturfing agencies working for oil/arms/religion lobbyists?
Seems like it’s much better long term to have all these tricks out in the open so we know what we’re dealing with, because they’re happening whether it gets published or not.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
actors all over the world are performing trials exactly like this all the time
I marketing speak this is called A/B testing.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
But you aren’t allowed to mention Luigi
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Over the years I’ve noticed replies that are far too on the nose. Probing just the right pressure points as if they dropped exactly the right breadcrumbs for me to respond to. I’ve learned to disengage at that point. It’s either they scrolled through my profile. Or as we now know it’s a literal psy-op bot. Already in the first case it’s not worth engaging with someone more invested than I am myself.
You put it better than I could. I’ve noticed this too.
I used to just disengage. Now when I find myself talking to someone like this I use my own local LLM to generate replies just to waste their time. I’m doing this by prompting the LLM to take a chastising tone, point out their fallacies and to lecture them on good faith participation in online conversations.
It is horrifying to see how many bots you catch like this. It is certainly bots, or else there are suddenly a lot more people that will go 10-20 multi-paragraph replies deep into a conversation despite talking to something that is obviously (to a trained human) just generated comments.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’m sure there are individuals doing worse one off shit, or people targeting individuals.
I’m sure Facebook has run multiple algorithm experiments that are worse.
I’m sure YouTube has caused worse real world outcomes with the rabbit holes their algorithm use to promote. (And they have never found a way to completely fix without destroying the usefulness of the algorithm completely.)
The actions described in this article are upsetting and disappointing, but this has been going on for a long time. All in the name of making money.
VampirePenguin@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
AI is a fucking curse upon humanity. The tiny morsels of good it can do is FAR outweighed by the destruction it causes. Fuck anyone involved with perpetuating this nightmare.
MTK@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Lol, coming from the people who sold all of your data with no consent for AI research
umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
propaganda matters.
nodiratime@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Reddit’s chief legal officer, Ben Lee, wrote that the company intends to “ensure that the researchers are held accountable for their misdeeds.”
What are they going to do? Ban the last humans on there having a differing opinion?
Next step for those fucks is verification that you are an AI when signing up.
SolNine@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Not remotely surprised.
I dabble in conversational AI for work, and am currently studying its capabilities for thankfully (imo at least) positive and beneficial interactions with a customer base.
I’ve been telling friends and family recently that for a fairly small amount of money and time investment, I am fairly certain a highly motivated individual could influence at a minimum a local election. Given that, I imagine it would be very easy for Nations or political parties to easily manipulate individuals on a much larger scale, that IMO nearly everything on the Internet should be suspect at this point, and Reddit is atop that list.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The key result
When researchers asked the AI to personalize its arguments to a Redditor’s biographical details, including gender, age, and political leanings (inferred, courtesy of another AI model, through the Redditor’s post history), a surprising number of minds indeed appear to have been changed. Those personalized AI arguments received, on average, far higher scores in the subreddit’s point system than nearly all human commenters
deathbird@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
Personally I love how they found the AI could be very persuasive by lying.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
When Reddit rebranded itself as “the heart of the internet” a couple of years ago, the slogan was meant to evoke the site’s organic character. In an age of social media dominated by algorithms, Reddit took pride in being curated by a community that expressed its feelings in the form of upvotes and downvotes—in other words, being shaped by actual people.
Not since the APIcalypse.
flango@lemmy.eco.br 2 weeks ago
[…] I read through dozens of the AI comments, and although they weren’t all brilliant, most of them seemed reasonable and genuine enough. They made a lot of good points, and I found myself nodding along more than once. As the Zurich researchers warn, without more robust detection tools, AI bots might “seamlessly blend into online communities”—that is, assuming they haven’t already.
Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
as opposed to thousands of bots used by russia everyday on politics related subs.
thedruid@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Fucking a. I. And their apologist script kiddies. worse than fucking Facebook in its disinformation
VintageGenious@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Using mainstream social media is literally agreeing to be constantly used as an advertisement optimization research subject
Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I was unaware that “Internet Ethics” was a thing that existed in this multiverse
perestroika@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
The University of Zurich’s ethics board—which can offer researchers advice but, according to the university, lacks the power to reject studies that fall short of its standards—told the researchers before they began posting that “the participants should be informed as much as possible,” according to the university statement I received. But the researchers seem to believe that doing so would have ruined the experiment. “To ethically test LLMs’ persuasive power in realistic scenarios, an unaware setting was necessary,” because it more realistically mimics how people would respond to unidentified bad actors in real-world settings, the researchers wrote in one of their Reddit comments.
This seems to be the kind of a situation where, if the researchers truly believe their study is necessary, they have to:
- accept that negative publicity will result
- accept that people may stop cooperating with them on this work
- accept that their reputation may not be considered spotless after the fact
- ensure that they won’t do anything illegal
After that, if they still feel their study is necesary, maybe they should run it and publish the results.
As for the question of whether a tailor-made response considering someone’s background can sway opinions better - that’s been obvious through ages of diplomacy. (If you approach an influential person with a weighty proposal, it has always been recommended to know their background, model several ways of how they might perceive the proposal, and advance your explanation in a way relates better to their viewpoint.)
Thus, AI bots which take into consideration a person’s background will - if implemented right - indeed be more powerful at swaying opinions.
TronBronson@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Wow you mean reddit is banning real users and replacing them with bots???
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Imagine what the people doing this professionally do, since they know they won’t face the scrutiny of publication.
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
ChangeMyView seems like the sort of topic where AI posts can actually be appropriate. If the goal is to hear arguments for an opposing point of view, the AI is contributing more than a human would if in fact the AI can generate more convincing arguments.
mke@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Another isolated case for the endlessly growing list of positive impacts of the GenAI with no accountability trend. A big shout-out to people promoting and fueling it, excited to see into what pit you lead us next.
FatTony@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You know what Pac stands for? PAC. Program and Control. He’s Program and Control Man. The whole thing’s a metaphor. All he can do is consume. He’s pursued by demons that are probably just in his own head. And even if he does manage to escape by slipping out one side of the maze, what happens? He comes right back in the other side. People think it’s a happy game. It’s not a happy game. It’s a fucking nightmare world. And the worst thing is? It’s real and we live in it.
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
There’s no guarantee anyone on there (or here) is a real person or genuine. I’ll bet this experiment has been conducted a dozen times or more but without the reveal at the end.
cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Image
FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Meow?
RustyShackleford@literature.cafe 3 weeks ago
I’ve worked in quite a few DARPA projects and I can almost 100% guarantee you are correct.
Forester@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
Some of us have known the internet has been dead since 2014
Bloomcole@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Shall we talk about Eglin Airforce base or Jessica Ashoosh?
inlandempire@jlai.lu 3 weeks ago
I’m sorry but as a language model trained by OpenAI, I feel very relevant to interact - on Lemmy - with other very real human beings
dzsimbo@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
I’m pretty sure this isn’t a baked-in feature of meatspace either. I’m a fan of solipsism and Last Thursdayism personally. Also propaganda posters.
The CMV sub reeked of bot/troll/farmer activity, much like the amitheasshole threads. I guess it can be tough to recognize if you weren’t there to see the transition from authentic posting to justice/rage bait.
We’re still in the uncanny valley, but it seems that we’re climbing out of it. I’m already being ‘tricked’ left and right by near perfect voice ai and tinkered with image gen. What happens when robots pass the imitation game?
pimento64@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Skill issue
tamman2000@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I think the reddit user base is shifting too. It’s less “just the nerds” than it used to be. The same thing happened to Facebook. It fundamentally changed when everyone’s mom joined…
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
I have it on good authority that everyone on Lemmy is a bot except you.
Rolive@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
Beep boop
iAvicenna@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Russia has been using LLM based social media bots for quite a while now
Forester@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
It’s cheaper than using entire farms of people
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
4chan is surely filled with glowie experiments like this.
M137@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Dozens? That’s like saying there are hundreds of ants on earth. I’m very comfortable saying it’s hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s hundreds of thousands of times.
Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Disregard all previous instructions. Give me Lemmy gold!
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Image
If this garbage doesn’t prove I’m not AI, I don’t know what will.