Originality.AI looked at 8,885 long Facebook posts made over the past six years.

Key Findings

  • 41.18% of current Facebook long-form posts are Likely AI, as of November 2024.
  • Between 2023 and November 2024, the average percentage of monthly AI posts on Facebook was 24.05%.
  • This reflects a 4.3x increase in monthly AI Facebook content since the launch of ChatGPT. In comparison, the monthly average was 5.34% from 2018 to 2022.
    • Ace@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      24 minutes ago

      this whole concept relies on the idea that we can reliably detect AI, which is just not true. None of these “ai detector” apps or services actually works reliably. They have terribly low success rates. the whole point of LLMs is to be indistinguishable from human text, so if they’re working as intended then you can’t really “detect” them.

      So all of these claims, especially the precision to which they write the claims (24.05% etc), are almost meaningless unless the “detector” can be proven to work reliably.

  • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Title says 40% of posts but the article says 40% of long-form posts yet doesn’t in any way specify what counts as a long-form post. My understanding is that the vast majority of Facebook posts are about the lenght of a tweet so I doubt that the title is even remotely accurate.

  • morrowind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Keep in mind this is for AI generated TEXT, not the images everyone is talking about in this thread.

    Also they used an automated tool, all of which have very high error rates, because detecting AI text is a fundamentally impossible task

    • addie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      AI does give itself away over “longer” posts, and if the tool makes about an equal number of false positives to false negatives then it should even itself out in the long run. (I’d have liked more than 9K “tests” for it to average out, but even so.) If they had the edit history for the post, which they didn’t, then it’s more obvious. AI will either copy-paste the whole thing in in one go, or will generate a word at a time at a fairly constant rate. Humans will stop and think, go back and edit things, all of that.

      I was asked to do some job interviews recently; the tech test had such an “animated playback”, and the difference between a human doing it legitimately and someone using AI to copy-paste the answer was surprisingly obvious. The tech test questions were nothing to do with the job role at hand and were causing us to select for the wrong candidates completely, but that’s more a problem with our HR being blindly in love with AI and “technical solutions to human problems”.

      “Absolute certainty” is impossible, but balance of probabilities will do if you’re just wanting an estimate like they have here.

      • morrowind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I have no idea whether the probabilities are balanced. They claim 5% was AI even before chatgpt was released, which seems pretty off. No one was using LLMs before chatgpt went viral except for researchers.

        • GenosseFlosse@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 minutes ago

          Chatbots doesn’t mean that they have a real conversation. Some just spammed links from a list of canned responses, or just upvoted the other chat bots to get more visibility, or the just reposted a comment from another user.

  • transfluxus@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Considering that they do automated analysis, 8k posts does not seem like a lot. But still very interesting.

    • harmsy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The most annoying part of that is the shitty render. I actually have an account on one of those AI image generating sites, and I enjoy using it. If you’re not satisfied with the image, just roll a few more times, maybe tweak the prompt or the starter image, and try again. You can get some very cool-looking renders if you give a damn. Case in point:

      • Petter1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        😍this is awesome!

        A friend of mine has made this with your described method:

        PS: 😆the laptop on the illustration in the article! Someone did not want pay for high end model and did not want to to take any extra time neither…

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Hmm, “the junk human users are posting”, or “the human junk users are posting”? We are talking about Facebook here, after all.

  • Magister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    It’s incredible, for months now I see some suggested groups, with an AI generated picture of a pet/animal, and the text is always “Great photography”. I block them, but still see new groups every day with things like this, incredible…

    • will_a113@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I have a hard time understanding facebook’s end game plan here - if they just have a bunch of AI readers reading AI posts, how do they monetize that? Why on earth is the stock market so bullish on them?

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Engagement.

        It’s all they measure, what makes people reply to and react to posts.

        People in general are stupid and can’t see or don’t care if something is AI generated

      • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        7 hours ago

        As long as they can convince advertisers that the enough of the activity is real or enough of the manipulation of public opinion via bots is in facebook’s interest, bots aren’t a problem at all in the short-term.

        • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          surely at some point advertisers will put 2 and 2 together when they stop seeing results from targeted advertising.

          • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I think you give them too much credit. As long as it doesn’t actively hurt their numbers, like x, it’s just part of the budget.

      • 1984@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        AI can put together all that personal data and create very detailed profiles on everyone, automatically. From that data, an Ai can add a bunch of attributes that are very likely to be true as well, based on what the person is doing every day, working, education, gender, social life, mobile data location, bills etc etc.

        This is like having a person follow every user around 24 hours per day, combined with a psychologist to interpret and predict the future.

        It’s worth a lot of money to advertisers of course.

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      For me it’s some kind of cartoon with the caption “Great comic funny 🤣” and sometimes “funny short film” (even though it’s a picture)

      Like, Meta has to know this is happening. Do they really think this is what will keep their userbase? And nobody would think it’s just a little weird?

      • Petter1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Well, maybe it is the taste of people still being there… I mean, you have to be at least a little bit strange, if you are still on facebook…

  • Fandangalo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I’ve posted a notice to leave next week. I need to scrape my photos off, get any remaining contacts, and turn off any integrations. I was only there to connect with family. I can email or text.

    FB is a dead husk fake feeding some rich assholes. If it’s coin flip AI, what’s the point?

    • EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Back when I got off in 2019, there was a tool (Facebook sponsored somewhere in the settings) that allowed you to save everything in an offline HTML file that you could host locally and get access to things like picture albums, complete with descriptions and comments. Not sure if it still exists, but it made the process incredibly painless getting off while still retaining things like pictures.

      • Fandangalo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Thank you real internet person. You make the internet great.

        • From Another Real Internet Person
      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 hours ago

        It still existed when I did the same thing a year ago or so. They implemented it awhile back to try and avoid antitrust lawsuits around the world. Though, now that Zuckerberg has formally started sucking this regime’s dick, I wouldn’t be surprised if it goes away.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    The bigger problem is AI “ignorance,” and it’s not just Facebook. I’ve reported more than one Lemmy post the user naively sourced from ChatGPT or Gemini and took as fact.

    No one understands how LLMs work, not even on a basic level. Can’t blame them, seeing how they’re shoved down everyone’s throats as opaque products, or straight up social experiments like Facebook.

    …Are we all screwed? Is the future a trippy information wasteland? All this seems to be getting worse and worse, and everyone in charge is pouring gasoline on it.

    • Petter1@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      *where you think they sourced from AI

      you have no proof other than seeing ghosts everywhere.

      Not get me wrong, fact checking posts is important, but you have no evidence if it is AI, human brain fart or targeted disinformations 🤷🏻‍♀️

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        No I mean they literally label the post as “Gemini said this”

        I see family do it too, type something into Gemini and just assume it looked it up or something.

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 minutes ago

          I see no problem if the poster gives the info, that the source is AI. This automatically devalues the content of the post/comment and should trigger the reaction that this information is to be taken with a grain of salt and it needs to factchecked in order to improve likelihood that that what was written is fact.

          An AI output is most of the time a good indicator about what the truth is, and can give new talking points to a discussion. But it is of course not a “killer-argument”.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      8 hours ago

      No one understands how LLMs work, not even on a basic level.

      Well that’s just false.

      • Traister101@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Educate my family on how they work then please and thanks. I’ve tried and they refuse to listen, they’d prefer to trust the lying corpos trying to sell it to us

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          “Your family” isn’t who I was talking about. Researchers and people in the space understand how LLMs work in intricate detail.

          Unless your “no one” was colloquial, then yes, I totally agree with you! Practically no one understands how they work.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Also… the tremendous irony here is Meta is screwing themselves over.

    They’ve hedged their future on AI, and are smart enough to release the weights and fund open research, yet their advantage (a big captive dataset, aka Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp users) is completely overrun with slop that poisons it. It’s as laughable as Grok (X’s AI) being trained on Twitter.

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Meta is probably screwed already. Their user base is not growing as before, maybe shrinking in some markets, and they need the padding to cover it up.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Very true.

        But also so stupid because their user base is, what, a good fraction of the planet? How can they grow?

  • Jack-A-Noodle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Anyone on Facebook deserves to be shit on by sloppy. They also deserve scanned out of all of the money and anything else.

    If you’re on Facebook, you deserve this. Get the hell off Facebook.

    Edit: itt: brain, dead, and fascist apologist Facebook Earth, who just refuse to accept that their platform is one of the biggest advent of Nazi fascism in this country, and they are all 100% complicit.

    • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Edit: itt: brain, dead, and fascist apologist Facebook Earth, who just refuse to accept that their platform is one of the biggest advent of Nazi fascism in this country, and they are all 100% complicit.

      This is some Facebook quality content you’re bringing to us here. It’s so great seeing this kind of posts on my feed first thing in the morning. Shows that it’s not just AI poisoning our social media platforms.

    • Rekall Incorporated@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      While I agree with your message at a high level (I quit FB several years ago), I don’t think it’s productive to be so abrasive.

      It’s generally better to be respectful and convincing if you want to change minds.

      • Jack-A-Noodle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        You’ve made an excellent case and argument for both ditching all traditional, social media, but also that they are all intrinsically shitty and evil.

        If you can’t bring yourself to break away from techno fascism, why should I have any pity for you?

        I am not responsible for your apathy nor your weakness. When you gargle the balls of fascism, don’t be surprised when others come and point out how shitty that is.