Happy elections.
You've always needed to be critical of your sources, your teacher tried to explain that when you ripped of that Wikipedia article or clicked the first link in a Google search. How the fuck did the AI companies think they could avoid reading and rating the content they've been hovering up?
Lol.
[dead]
I would imagine in smaller industries, flooding the internet with fake information, then linking it all together would be somewhat easier - but it still takes quite a bit of work to get even just the major LLM's to give the consistent responses you want to see.
Hypnotoad promises peace
Hypnotoad promises peace.
... or brainslug
What makes this even more painful is seeing all the good faith answers that such GEO posts spur from the community. It's far more abusive than SEO spam.
A few weeks later she searched for the pool on Google, and the AI review has taken the post seriously and mentioned that our pool features beautiful AstroTurf landscaping.
IIRC, the AI review repaired itself a few weeks later.
I was just contemplating the other day that agents we use at work are exposing new attack surfaces. For example, historically a folder of documents (maybe google docs) isn't a huge risk, particularly if it doesn't contain sensitive documents.
Now though if one employee is running a harness capable of computer control, and running an agent that reads from that directory, simply dropping some files with instructions could poison the AI to leak info or even own the host.
Skills are another supply risk, malicious instructions could be added to them.
I run into this all the time when I'm doing product work. I'll dump a call transcript from a feedback call into Claude, and it'll believe every word. "The user said they'd use this feature, you should build it!" No they won't! The whole point of doing this analysis is trying to separate the genuine information from the conversational niceties, and god the LLMs are terrible at that.
Reminds me of another class of statistical language generators.
It got better after I pointed out a lot of the links it's showing me are spam and/or slop, it edited something to "avoid clickbait" and it seems to be a bit better.
Back at benevolence or malevolence.
[1] https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/israel-brad-parscale-ai-chatb...
AI tools are notoriously unreliable, and people that use them *on purpose* generally know and recognize that. If grandma, who is not super-internet-literate, types a query into google and gets a phone number, she's going to assume that it's the correct number and not the result of a lossy data store that's under active (and constant) attack.
It used to be that you could reasonably verify your source with an HTTPS cert (so you can probably trust the number that's on Delta Airlines' website), and pop up scary warnings for grandma if those certs failed. Now every piece of misinformation has a valid cert from google or meta or X, so determining the truth is much more difficult and time consuming.
[dead]
[dead]
Attackers are flooding the web with carefully optimized posts, PDFs, reviews, and fake support pages, to trick AI into presenting fraudulent phone numbers, email addresses, and login pages.
The targets included Delta, Lufthansa, Qatar Airways, Chase, Bank of America, Airbnb, TripAdvisor, and hundreds more.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]