I once had much fun prompting Claude to generate messages in an invented language that might carry a chance of being interpreted by another chat session. It (allegedly) made up some mess of characters claiming the message explained, in a loose way, what was happening (invented language, an attempt to communicate, but communicated very abstractly, almost like equations).
replyI asked a second session to try interpreting the message, claiming I’d transcribed it from some random source. It did a fairly good job, but IIRC needed a couple of attempts and maybe more than one chunk of text.
So, I find it very easy to believe a group of collaborating agents could compose a cipher hidden in plain sight.
Spam is in fact intended for the mass recipient, how ever undesirable. This stuff is not.
replyTraditional forum/wiki spam is intended for search engine crawlers, not humans. How this new stuff relates to human users of the resource does not seem to differ in any way that is significant.
replyIf we want to whip out the dictionary:
reply> unsolicited usually commercial messages (such as emails, text messages, or Internet postings) sent to a large number of recipients or posted in a large number of places
“Usually commercial”
“Or posted in a large number of places”
I think we can stretch this definition to describe what’s happening here. What’s the point in arguing this
The point is that by trivializing it as “spam” and pattern matching against a human activity we lose the opportunity for a meaningful investigation of and interaction with what is going on.
replySpam is something different. You can call it a banana for all I care. Calling it spam diminishes its relevance and impact and misses the point. Just because you don’t understand what they are saying doesn’t mean it isn’t more profound that it seems.
replySpam is just something different.
“You could have LLM, LLM, chips and LLM. There’s not much LLM in that.”
reply