An interview request from a bot posing as a reporter revealed an AI-generated news site with articles attacking AI industry critics. For the second time this month, we found links to Targeted Victory.
No way! I am so outraged. These crooks smeared PauseAI last week and told outright lies on their article, that they never corrected after I indicated them the factual inaccuracies.
Thank you so much for your great work exposing this fraud.
This is an impressively thorough write-up, nice. That said, I would say this doesn't look like a case of an evil mastermind plotting to take over the online news world. Looks more like a case of someone who is ignorant about journalism, and unprincipled, deciding to make something that may be annoying and deceptive, but is largely inconsequential.
I feel it's important to draw these distinctions, because we are entering a period where this sort of thing, where people pop up deceptive journalism outlets, out of petty greed, ignorance, and so on, is likely to become ubiquitous. We should save our real investigative energy for the things that are really problematic.
In this case, it seems like the biggest harms, which likely went to the interviewees, who were basically conned, could be avoided by simply educating people to look up people who say that they are journalists. A simple check for their masthead would have averted any issues.
Edit: One further note, that along the same lines, I think this sort of writing would be much improved by the author saying who they are and where their funding comes from. Model Republic does not list an author on its about page.
I am not at all sure evil vs ignorant and unprincipled, is an important distinction to draw. Honestly a focus on "evil" in technology discussions is a red flag to me. Ignorant, unprincipled and in this case dangerous is plenty to call out without having to moralize about it.
The connection from Acutus to Hynes seems very weak.
You've listed these points that are supposed to show the connection:
1. Hynes is quoted in an Acutus article
2. Hynes is 1 of 4 accounts who retweeted Acutus links
3. Novus agenda and coverage aligns with those of Acutus.
The first two only show that the person operating Acutus contacted / had an AI agent contact Hynes, Hynes thought that it was a human, gave them a quote and retweeted. This is easily explained by Hynes not noticing he was not talking to a human, the same way that you mention that a Harvard Business School professor did not notice he was talking to an AI, gave them a quote, and then mentioned them on his LinkedIn. In the professor's case you reach the conclusion that he was probably deceived by the AI, but in the case of Hynes you reach the conclusion that he must actually be behind this website. This is very weak evidence.
The third point is also weak. A lot of politics-relate people have the same talking points, without being directly conected, this is just how people operate now, especially the right-wing.
All of the evidence linking Hynes and Acutus would be perfectly explained by the person operating Acutus promoting the general pro-AI agenda, and reaching out to different people for comments, one of them happening to be some professor, one of them happening to be Hynes.
Dude please please look into The Signal Front. I (and others) suspect that they are an OAI front too. Reach out to me, too, if you can, so I can give you more info. My DMs are open.
Wow, great find! Its surprising OpenAI is so bad at discrediting their opponents when so many of their opponents are very easy to discredit, like the fake Human Line Project that poses as a non profit peer support group but is actually a sophisticated litigation financing corporation.
No way! I am so outraged. These crooks smeared PauseAI last week and told outright lies on their article, that they never corrected after I indicated them the factual inaccuracies.
Thank you so much for your great work exposing this fraud.
This is an impressively thorough write-up, nice. That said, I would say this doesn't look like a case of an evil mastermind plotting to take over the online news world. Looks more like a case of someone who is ignorant about journalism, and unprincipled, deciding to make something that may be annoying and deceptive, but is largely inconsequential.
I feel it's important to draw these distinctions, because we are entering a period where this sort of thing, where people pop up deceptive journalism outlets, out of petty greed, ignorance, and so on, is likely to become ubiquitous. We should save our real investigative energy for the things that are really problematic.
In this case, it seems like the biggest harms, which likely went to the interviewees, who were basically conned, could be avoided by simply educating people to look up people who say that they are journalists. A simple check for their masthead would have averted any issues.
Edit: One further note, that along the same lines, I think this sort of writing would be much improved by the author saying who they are and where their funding comes from. Model Republic does not list an author on its about page.
I am not at all sure evil vs ignorant and unprincipled, is an important distinction to draw. Honestly a focus on "evil" in technology discussions is a red flag to me. Ignorant, unprincipled and in this case dangerous is plenty to call out without having to moralize about it.
The connection from Acutus to Hynes seems very weak.
You've listed these points that are supposed to show the connection:
1. Hynes is quoted in an Acutus article
2. Hynes is 1 of 4 accounts who retweeted Acutus links
3. Novus agenda and coverage aligns with those of Acutus.
The first two only show that the person operating Acutus contacted / had an AI agent contact Hynes, Hynes thought that it was a human, gave them a quote and retweeted. This is easily explained by Hynes not noticing he was not talking to a human, the same way that you mention that a Harvard Business School professor did not notice he was talking to an AI, gave them a quote, and then mentioned them on his LinkedIn. In the professor's case you reach the conclusion that he was probably deceived by the AI, but in the case of Hynes you reach the conclusion that he must actually be behind this website. This is very weak evidence.
The third point is also weak. A lot of politics-relate people have the same talking points, without being directly conected, this is just how people operate now, especially the right-wing.
All of the evidence linking Hynes and Acutus would be perfectly explained by the person operating Acutus promoting the general pro-AI agenda, and reaching out to different people for comments, one of them happening to be some professor, one of them happening to be Hynes.
Dude please please look into The Signal Front. I (and others) suspect that they are an OAI front too. Reach out to me, too, if you can, so I can give you more info. My DMs are open.
Wow, great find! Its surprising OpenAI is so bad at discrediting their opponents when so many of their opponents are very easy to discredit, like the fake Human Line Project that poses as a non profit peer support group but is actually a sophisticated litigation financing corporation.