Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Do diets work?

12526272830

Replies

  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,566 Member
    jeanona wrote: »
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    Looks like we're never going to find out if it was a bot or a real life person.

    Exactly the same behavior as last time... as soon as his/it's humanity was questioned... BAM! no more posts

    Except they didn't deactivate, they were, uhm, shown the door.

    This is going to sound completely stupid, but how do you know it's a bot? Or rather how would a non human even be able to post like that?

    You guys can all loudly laugh at me if that question is seriously as stupid as it sounds...

    In the previous thread, it was a combination of things,

    Holding to mutually exclusive concepts and arguing them(with sourcing)
    Presenting ideas in a context apparently devoid of experience

    were the two at the forefront that twigged me to make the guess.

    The kicker was that as soon as I made the guess(in a manner that would be entirely ignored by a person who was as confused as the poster appeared)... I asked "Are you turing complete" which is an industry phrase. The poster stopped and deactivated immediately.

    I didn’t read the entire thread but this caught my eye.

    I didn’t think any bots were turing complete and skimming through the answers, it sounded quite on point and gave seemingly intelligent answers. More than that, no one knew whether it was or wasn’t a human (I wasn’t able to read all its posts. I think some were deleted).

    There are some bots that are getting close, and there may be a few in the wild that are and haven't been written/published on yet. That being said, Lack of human contextualization... too consistent.... not consistent enough... or as with the one that we called out before Jesuteresa... inconsistently consistent. In a narrow environment like MFP, it would certainly be possible to develop a bot that would learn and behave appropriately according to community standards.

    Some things that would/do catch my attention. Response time, response density(even the most active posters don't respond to every post... and will bow out even when convinced they're right). Even the most OCD ASD person has a discernable personality and frustration threshold. Spelling, grammar, etc. even the driest most factual post reflects the personality of the poster..

    One of the things I find interesting (I'd never knowingly run into a bot before this forum) is that the bots are extremely argumentative and opposed to the general consensus of whatever the thread topic is. I would think that for an initial attempt to pass as human, the bot's creator(s) would try to slip into the conversation by re-iterating some of the more commonly accepted views, and support posters who were debunking invalid arguments. That's just me, though, I may be misunderstanding some of the goals for this type of experiment. :)
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    edited February 2018
    mph323 wrote: »
    jeanona wrote: »
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    Looks like we're never going to find out if it was a bot or a real life person.

    Exactly the same behavior as last time... as soon as his/it's humanity was questioned... BAM! no more posts

    Except they didn't deactivate, they were, uhm, shown the door.

    This is going to sound completely stupid, but how do you know it's a bot? Or rather how would a non human even be able to post like that?

    You guys can all loudly laugh at me if that question is seriously as stupid as it sounds...

    In the previous thread, it was a combination of things,

    Holding to mutually exclusive concepts and arguing them(with sourcing)
    Presenting ideas in a context apparently devoid of experience

    were the two at the forefront that twigged me to make the guess.

    The kicker was that as soon as I made the guess(in a manner that would be entirely ignored by a person who was as confused as the poster appeared)... I asked "Are you turing complete" which is an industry phrase. The poster stopped and deactivated immediately.

    I didn’t read the entire thread but this caught my eye.

    I didn’t think any bots were turing complete and skimming through the answers, it sounded quite on point and gave seemingly intelligent answers. More than that, no one knew whether it was or wasn’t a human (I wasn’t able to read all its posts. I think some were deleted).

    There are some bots that are getting close, and there may be a few in the wild that are and haven't been written/published on yet. That being said, Lack of human contextualization... too consistent.... not consistent enough... or as with the one that we called out before Jesuteresa... inconsistently consistent. In a narrow environment like MFP, it would certainly be possible to develop a bot that would learn and behave appropriately according to community standards.

    Some things that would/do catch my attention. Response time, response density(even the most active posters don't respond to every post... and will bow out even when convinced they're right). Even the most OCD ASD person has a discernable personality and frustration threshold. Spelling, grammar, etc. even the driest most factual post reflects the personality of the poster..

    One of the things I find interesting (I'd never knowingly run into a bot before this forum) is that the bots are extremely argumentative and opposed to the general consensus of whatever the thread topic is. I would think that for an initial attempt to pass as human, the bot's creator(s) would try to slip into the conversation by re-iterating some of the more commonly accepted views, and support posters who were debunking invalid arguments. That's just me, though, I may be misunderstanding some of the goals for this type of experiment. :)

    One of the goals might be to see what people notice and call out when interacting with a bot and disagreement/contention is probably a better way to generate a larger number of direct interactions than someone coming into a thread and agreeing.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,566 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    jeanona wrote: »
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    Looks like we're never going to find out if it was a bot or a real life person.

    Exactly the same behavior as last time... as soon as his/it's humanity was questioned... BAM! no more posts

    Except they didn't deactivate, they were, uhm, shown the door.

    This is going to sound completely stupid, but how do you know it's a bot? Or rather how would a non human even be able to post like that?

    You guys can all loudly laugh at me if that question is seriously as stupid as it sounds...

    In the previous thread, it was a combination of things,

    Holding to mutually exclusive concepts and arguing them(with sourcing)
    Presenting ideas in a context apparently devoid of experience

    were the two at the forefront that twigged me to make the guess.

    The kicker was that as soon as I made the guess(in a manner that would be entirely ignored by a person who was as confused as the poster appeared)... I asked "Are you turing complete" which is an industry phrase. The poster stopped and deactivated immediately.

    I didn’t read the entire thread but this caught my eye.

    I didn’t think any bots were turing complete and skimming through the answers, it sounded quite on point and gave seemingly intelligent answers. More than that, no one knew whether it was or wasn’t a human (I wasn’t able to read all its posts. I think some were deleted).

    There are some bots that are getting close, and there may be a few in the wild that are and haven't been written/published on yet. That being said, Lack of human contextualization... too consistent.... not consistent enough... or as with the one that we called out before Jesuteresa... inconsistently consistent. In a narrow environment like MFP, it would certainly be possible to develop a bot that would learn and behave appropriately according to community standards.

    Some things that would/do catch my attention. Response time, response density(even the most active posters don't respond to every post... and will bow out even when convinced they're right). Even the most OCD ASD person has a discernable personality and frustration threshold. Spelling, grammar, etc. even the driest most factual post reflects the personality of the poster..

    One of the things I find interesting (I'd never knowingly run into a bot before this forum) is that the bots are extremely argumentative and opposed to the general consensus of whatever the thread topic is. I would think that for an initial attempt to pass as human, the bot's creator(s) would try to slip into the conversation by re-iterating some of the more commonly accepted views, and support posters who were debunking invalid arguments. That's just me, though, I may be misunderstanding some of the goals for this type of experiment. :)

    One of the goals might be to see what people notice and call out when interacting with a bot and disagreement/contention is probably a better way to generate a larger number of direct interactions than someone coming into a thread and agreeing.

    Good point :drinker:
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    jeanona wrote: »
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    Looks like we're never going to find out if it was a bot or a real life person.

    Exactly the same behavior as last time... as soon as his/it's humanity was questioned... BAM! no more posts

    Except they didn't deactivate, they were, uhm, shown the door.

    This is going to sound completely stupid, but how do you know it's a bot? Or rather how would a non human even be able to post like that?

    You guys can all loudly laugh at me if that question is seriously as stupid as it sounds...

    In the previous thread, it was a combination of things,

    Holding to mutually exclusive concepts and arguing them(with sourcing)
    Presenting ideas in a context apparently devoid of experience

    were the two at the forefront that twigged me to make the guess.

    The kicker was that as soon as I made the guess(in a manner that would be entirely ignored by a person who was as confused as the poster appeared)... I asked "Are you turing complete" which is an industry phrase. The poster stopped and deactivated immediately.

    I didn’t read the entire thread but this caught my eye.

    I didn’t think any bots were turing complete and skimming through the answers, it sounded quite on point and gave seemingly intelligent answers. More than that, no one knew whether it was or wasn’t a human (I wasn’t able to read all its posts. I think some were deleted).

    There are some bots that are getting close, and there may be a few in the wild that are and haven't been written/published on yet. That being said, Lack of human contextualization... too consistent.... not consistent enough... or as with the one that we called out before Jesuteresa... inconsistently consistent. In a narrow environment like MFP, it would certainly be possible to develop a bot that would learn and behave appropriately according to community standards.

    Some things that would/do catch my attention. Response time, response density(even the most active posters don't respond to every post... and will bow out even when convinced they're right). Even the most OCD ASD person has a discernable personality and frustration threshold. Spelling, grammar, etc. even the driest most factual post reflects the personality of the poster..

    One of the things I find interesting (I'd never knowingly run into a bot before this forum) is that the bots are extremely argumentative and opposed to the general consensus of whatever the thread topic is. I would think that for an initial attempt to pass as human, the bot's creator(s) would try to slip into the conversation by re-iterating some of the more commonly accepted views, and support posters who were debunking invalid arguments. That's just me, though, I may be misunderstanding some of the goals for this type of experiment. :)

    One of the goals might be to see what people notice and call out when interacting with a bot and disagreement/contention is probably a better way to generate a larger number of direct interactions than someone coming into a thread and agreeing.

    Good point :drinker:

    This is how our peers can know we aren't bots. :D
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    jeanona wrote: »
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    Looks like we're never going to find out if it was a bot or a real life person.

    Exactly the same behavior as last time... as soon as his/it's humanity was questioned... BAM! no more posts

    Except they didn't deactivate, they were, uhm, shown the door.

    This is going to sound completely stupid, but how do you know it's a bot? Or rather how would a non human even be able to post like that?

    You guys can all loudly laugh at me if that question is seriously as stupid as it sounds...

    In the previous thread, it was a combination of things,

    Holding to mutually exclusive concepts and arguing them(with sourcing)
    Presenting ideas in a context apparently devoid of experience

    were the two at the forefront that twigged me to make the guess.

    The kicker was that as soon as I made the guess(in a manner that would be entirely ignored by a person who was as confused as the poster appeared)... I asked "Are you turing complete" which is an industry phrase. The poster stopped and deactivated immediately.

    I didn’t read the entire thread but this caught my eye.

    I didn’t think any bots were turing complete and skimming through the answers, it sounded quite on point and gave seemingly intelligent answers. More than that, no one knew whether it was or wasn’t a human (I wasn’t able to read all its posts. I think some were deleted).

    There are some bots that are getting close, and there may be a few in the wild that are and haven't been written/published on yet. That being said, Lack of human contextualization... too consistent.... not consistent enough... or as with the one that we called out before Jesuteresa... inconsistently consistent. In a narrow environment like MFP, it would certainly be possible to develop a bot that would learn and behave appropriately according to community standards.

    Some things that would/do catch my attention. Response time, response density(even the most active posters don't respond to every post... and will bow out even when convinced they're right). Even the most OCD ASD person has a discernable personality and frustration threshold. Spelling, grammar, etc. even the driest most factual post reflects the personality of the poster..

    One of the things I find interesting (I'd never knowingly run into a bot before this forum) is that the bots are extremely argumentative and opposed to the general consensus of whatever the thread topic is. I would think that for an initial attempt to pass as human, the bot's creator(s) would try to slip into the conversation by re-iterating some of the more commonly accepted views, and support posters who were debunking invalid arguments. That's just me, though, I may be misunderstanding some of the goals for this type of experiment. :)

    One of the goals might be to see what people notice and call out when interacting with a bot and disagreement/contention is probably a better way to generate a larger number of direct interactions than someone coming into a thread and agreeing.

    Good point :drinker:

    This is how our peers can know we aren't bots. :D

    Agreed
  • jessiferrrb
    jessiferrrb Posts: 1,758 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    jeanona wrote: »
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    Looks like we're never going to find out if it was a bot or a real life person.

    Exactly the same behavior as last time... as soon as his/it's humanity was questioned... BAM! no more posts

    Except they didn't deactivate, they were, uhm, shown the door.

    This is going to sound completely stupid, but how do you know it's a bot? Or rather how would a non human even be able to post like that?

    You guys can all loudly laugh at me if that question is seriously as stupid as it sounds...

    In the previous thread, it was a combination of things,

    Holding to mutually exclusive concepts and arguing them(with sourcing)
    Presenting ideas in a context apparently devoid of experience

    were the two at the forefront that twigged me to make the guess.

    The kicker was that as soon as I made the guess(in a manner that would be entirely ignored by a person who was as confused as the poster appeared)... I asked "Are you turing complete" which is an industry phrase. The poster stopped and deactivated immediately.

    I didn’t read the entire thread but this caught my eye.

    I didn’t think any bots were turing complete and skimming through the answers, it sounded quite on point and gave seemingly intelligent answers. More than that, no one knew whether it was or wasn’t a human (I wasn’t able to read all its posts. I think some were deleted).

    There are some bots that are getting close, and there may be a few in the wild that are and haven't been written/published on yet. That being said, Lack of human contextualization... too consistent.... not consistent enough... or as with the one that we called out before Jesuteresa... inconsistently consistent. In a narrow environment like MFP, it would certainly be possible to develop a bot that would learn and behave appropriately according to community standards.

    Some things that would/do catch my attention. Response time, response density(even the most active posters don't respond to every post... and will bow out even when convinced they're right). Even the most OCD ASD person has a discernable personality and frustration threshold. Spelling, grammar, etc. even the driest most factual post reflects the personality of the poster..

    One of the things I find interesting (I'd never knowingly run into a bot before this forum) is that the bots are extremely argumentative and opposed to the general consensus of whatever the thread topic is. I would think that for an initial attempt to pass as human, the bot's creator(s) would try to slip into the conversation by re-iterating some of the more commonly accepted views, and support posters who were debunking invalid arguments. That's just me, though, I may be misunderstanding some of the goals for this type of experiment. :)

    One of the goals might be to see what people notice and call out when interacting with a bot and disagreement/contention is probably a better way to generate a larger number of direct interactions than someone coming into a thread and agreeing.

    Good point :drinker:

    This is how our peers can know we aren't bots. :D

    Disagree

    giphy.gif
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    jeanona wrote: »
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    Looks like we're never going to find out if it was a bot or a real life person.

    Exactly the same behavior as last time... as soon as his/it's humanity was questioned... BAM! no more posts

    Except they didn't deactivate, they were, uhm, shown the door.

    This is going to sound completely stupid, but how do you know it's a bot? Or rather how would a non human even be able to post like that?

    You guys can all loudly laugh at me if that question is seriously as stupid as it sounds...

    In the previous thread, it was a combination of things,

    Holding to mutually exclusive concepts and arguing them(with sourcing)
    Presenting ideas in a context apparently devoid of experience

    were the two at the forefront that twigged me to make the guess.

    The kicker was that as soon as I made the guess(in a manner that would be entirely ignored by a person who was as confused as the poster appeared)... I asked "Are you turing complete" which is an industry phrase. The poster stopped and deactivated immediately.

    I didn’t read the entire thread but this caught my eye.

    I didn’t think any bots were turing complete and skimming through the answers, it sounded quite on point and gave seemingly intelligent answers. More than that, no one knew whether it was or wasn’t a human (I wasn’t able to read all its posts. I think some were deleted).

    There are some bots that are getting close, and there may be a few in the wild that are and haven't been written/published on yet. That being said, Lack of human contextualization... too consistent.... not consistent enough... or as with the one that we called out before Jesuteresa... inconsistently consistent. In a narrow environment like MFP, it would certainly be possible to develop a bot that would learn and behave appropriately according to community standards.

    Some things that would/do catch my attention. Response time, response density(even the most active posters don't respond to every post... and will bow out even when convinced they're right). Even the most OCD ASD person has a discernable personality and frustration threshold. Spelling, grammar, etc. even the driest most factual post reflects the personality of the poster..

    One of the things I find interesting (I'd never knowingly run into a bot before this forum) is that the bots are extremely argumentative and opposed to the general consensus of whatever the thread topic is. I would think that for an initial attempt to pass as human, the bot's creator(s) would try to slip into the conversation by re-iterating some of the more commonly accepted views, and support posters who were debunking invalid arguments. That's just me, though, I may be misunderstanding some of the goals for this type of experiment. :)

    One of the goals might be to see what people notice and call out when interacting with a bot and disagreement/contention is probably a better way to generate a larger number of direct interactions than someone coming into a thread and agreeing.

    Good point :drinker:

    This is how our peers can know we aren't bots. :D

    Disagree

    giphy.gif

    NO!
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    jeanona wrote: »
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    Looks like we're never going to find out if it was a bot or a real life person.

    Exactly the same behavior as last time... as soon as his/it's humanity was questioned... BAM! no more posts

    Except they didn't deactivate, they were, uhm, shown the door.

    This is going to sound completely stupid, but how do you know it's a bot? Or rather how would a non human even be able to post like that?

    You guys can all loudly laugh at me if that question is seriously as stupid as it sounds...

    In the previous thread, it was a combination of things,

    Holding to mutually exclusive concepts and arguing them(with sourcing)
    Presenting ideas in a context apparently devoid of experience

    were the two at the forefront that twigged me to make the guess.

    The kicker was that as soon as I made the guess(in a manner that would be entirely ignored by a person who was as confused as the poster appeared)... I asked "Are you turing complete" which is an industry phrase. The poster stopped and deactivated immediately.

    I didn’t read the entire thread but this caught my eye.

    I didn’t think any bots were turing complete and skimming through the answers, it sounded quite on point and gave seemingly intelligent answers. More than that, no one knew whether it was or wasn’t a human (I wasn’t able to read all its posts. I think some were deleted).

    There are some bots that are getting close, and there may be a few in the wild that are and haven't been written/published on yet. That being said, Lack of human contextualization... too consistent.... not consistent enough... or as with the one that we called out before Jesuteresa... inconsistently consistent. In a narrow environment like MFP, it would certainly be possible to develop a bot that would learn and behave appropriately according to community standards.

    Some things that would/do catch my attention. Response time, response density(even the most active posters don't respond to every post... and will bow out even when convinced they're right). Even the most OCD ASD person has a discernable personality and frustration threshold. Spelling, grammar, etc. even the driest most factual post reflects the personality of the poster..

    One of the things I find interesting (I'd never knowingly run into a bot before this forum) is that the bots are extremely argumentative and opposed to the general consensus of whatever the thread topic is. I would think that for an initial attempt to pass as human, the bot's creator(s) would try to slip into the conversation by re-iterating some of the more commonly accepted views, and support posters who were debunking invalid arguments. That's just me, though, I may be misunderstanding some of the goals for this type of experiment. :)

    One of the goals might be to see what people notice and call out when interacting with a bot and disagreement/contention is probably a better way to generate a larger number of direct interactions than someone coming into a thread and agreeing.

    Good point :drinker:

    This is how our peers can know we aren't bots. :D

    Disagree

    giphy.gif

    YES!
  • Psalm1139
    Psalm1139 Posts: 31 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    But who wants to eat four chicken breasts? Ugh. Why can't I have a chicken breast with a salad on Monday and cheeseburger on Tuesday?

    If your calories are on point, you don't need to eat like some clean-eating saint every day. You can make yummy stuff fit.

    1 burger (1 burger) is 50% of your calories for the day and its *kitten* food - then you are are wondering why you have cravings? and you start to binge at 9pm
    THAT is why diets don;t work

    I actually get much more intense cravings when I eat healthy food. Unlike most people on here, I am literally losing weight on mostly junk food. If I eat food I enjoy, I am satisfied with it. When I eat healthy food (most of which I don't enjoy) I feel hungry all day regardless of the calories and macros.

    And I do sometimes binge in the evenings, or when we go out, but I plan on it, and eat accordingly The rest of the day and the next day. Is this the healthiest way to lose weight? No. But it is working, at about a pound a week since January 1st, and my blood pressure went from prehypertension to normal in just one month (and I was only about 2 pounds into the overweight category, BMI wise).

    Calories in, calories out is all that matters for weight loss. Macros don't matter (I eat very little protein) and nutrients don't matter. For health purposes, those things do matter. I would be healthier if I ate healthy food. But I wouldn't weigh less. I might even weigh more, because when I've tried eating clean, I literally eat all day, trying to find something that will satisfy my cravings for simple starches and sugars. My cravings are all in my head, and I can eat lean protein and vegetables all day long and still "feel" incredibly hungry.
  • crabbybrianna
    crabbybrianna Posts: 344 Member
    Psalm1139 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    But who wants to eat four chicken breasts? Ugh. Why can't I have a chicken breast with a salad on Monday and cheeseburger on Tuesday?

    If your calories are on point, you don't need to eat like some clean-eating saint every day. You can make yummy stuff fit.

    1 burger (1 burger) is 50% of your calories for the day and its *kitten* food - then you are are wondering why you have cravings? and you start to binge at 9pm
    THAT is why diets don;t work

    I actually get much more intense cravings when I eat healthy food… I can eat lean protein and vegetables all day long and still "feel" incredibly hungry.

    Yes, I can totally relate to this. Whenever I’ve tried to just eat “healthy” foods, I’ve had some of the worst binges of my life. It never goes well. When I include foods that I actually want to eat, I have no problem sticking to my calorie goal and losing weight. Some days it’s nothing but pizza, ice cream, and cookies, but it works for me.
  • jeanona
    jeanona Posts: 155 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    jeanona wrote: »
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    Looks like we're never going to find out if it was a bot or a real life person.

    Exactly the same behavior as last time... as soon as his/it's humanity was questioned... BAM! no more posts

    Except they didn't deactivate, they were, uhm, shown the door.

    This is going to sound completely stupid, but how do you know it's a bot? Or rather how would a non human even be able to post like that?

    You guys can all loudly laugh at me if that question is seriously as stupid as it sounds...

    In the previous thread, it was a combination of things,

    Holding to mutually exclusive concepts and arguing them(with sourcing)
    Presenting ideas in a context apparently devoid of experience

    were the two at the forefront that twigged me to make the guess.

    The kicker was that as soon as I made the guess(in a manner that would be entirely ignored by a person who was as confused as the poster appeared)... I asked "Are you turing complete" which is an industry phrase. The poster stopped and deactivated immediately.

    I didn’t read the entire thread but this caught my eye.

    I didn’t think any bots were turing complete and skimming through the answers, it sounded quite on point and gave seemingly intelligent answers. More than that, no one knew whether it was or wasn’t a human (I wasn’t able to read all its posts. I think some were deleted).

    I read an article a couple of days ago (sorry didn't think to save it) that talked about the proliferation of AI bots on twitter and other social media, and how disrupting it is. Along with the repetitive banging on a limited number of responses with increasing contextual vagueness as @stanmann571 pointed out, the article noted that the continuous responses were out of sync with natural human rhythms, meaning the bot didn't take credible sleep breaks or other breaks that would suggest a life outside of the forum. It was an interesting article, I'm really sorry I didn't save it!

    These things fascinate me to no end! I've been reading some articles on it as well and AI stuff used to be part of my previous job and I learnt a lot from there.

    jeanona wrote: »
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    Looks like we're never going to find out if it was a bot or a real life person.

    Exactly the same behavior as last time... as soon as his/it's humanity was questioned... BAM! no more posts

    Except they didn't deactivate, they were, uhm, shown the door.

    This is going to sound completely stupid, but how do you know it's a bot? Or rather how would a non human even be able to post like that?

    You guys can all loudly laugh at me if that question is seriously as stupid as it sounds...

    In the previous thread, it was a combination of things,

    Holding to mutually exclusive concepts and arguing them(with sourcing)
    Presenting ideas in a context apparently devoid of experience

    were the two at the forefront that twigged me to make the guess.

    The kicker was that as soon as I made the guess(in a manner that would be entirely ignored by a person who was as confused as the poster appeared)... I asked "Are you turing complete" which is an industry phrase. The poster stopped and deactivated immediately.

    I didn’t read the entire thread but this caught my eye.

    I didn’t think any bots were turing complete and skimming through the answers, it sounded quite on point and gave seemingly intelligent answers. More than that, no one knew whether it was or wasn’t a human (I wasn’t able to read all its posts. I think some were deleted).

    There are some bots that are getting close, and there may be a few in the wild that are and haven't been written/published on yet. That being said, Lack of human contextualization... too consistent.... not consistent enough... or as with the one that we called out before Jesuteresa... inconsistently consistent. In a narrow environment like MFP, it would certainly be possible to develop a bot that would learn and behave appropriately according to community standards.

    Some things that would/do catch my attention. Response time, response density(even the most active posters don't respond to every post... and will bow out even when convinced they're right). Even the most OCD ASD person has a discernable personality and frustration threshold. Spelling, grammar, etc. even the driest most factual post reflects the personality of the poster..

    So true. I've noticed a poster who disses Lyle McDonald all the time. He creates a number of accounts and some of you refer to him as "shouty guy"?? You think he's a bot??
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,566 Member
    jeanona wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    jeanona wrote: »
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    Looks like we're never going to find out if it was a bot or a real life person.

    Exactly the same behavior as last time... as soon as his/it's humanity was questioned... BAM! no more posts

    Except they didn't deactivate, they were, uhm, shown the door.

    This is going to sound completely stupid, but how do you know it's a bot? Or rather how would a non human even be able to post like that?

    You guys can all loudly laugh at me if that question is seriously as stupid as it sounds...

    In the previous thread, it was a combination of things,

    Holding to mutually exclusive concepts and arguing them(with sourcing)
    Presenting ideas in a context apparently devoid of experience

    were the two at the forefront that twigged me to make the guess.

    The kicker was that as soon as I made the guess(in a manner that would be entirely ignored by a person who was as confused as the poster appeared)... I asked "Are you turing complete" which is an industry phrase. The poster stopped and deactivated immediately.

    I didn’t read the entire thread but this caught my eye.

    I didn’t think any bots were turing complete and skimming through the answers, it sounded quite on point and gave seemingly intelligent answers. More than that, no one knew whether it was or wasn’t a human (I wasn’t able to read all its posts. I think some were deleted).

    I read an article a couple of days ago (sorry didn't think to save it) that talked about the proliferation of AI bots on twitter and other social media, and how disrupting it is. Along with the repetitive banging on a limited number of responses with increasing contextual vagueness as @stanmann571 pointed out, the article noted that the continuous responses were out of sync with natural human rhythms, meaning the bot didn't take credible sleep breaks or other breaks that would suggest a life outside of the forum. It was an interesting article, I'm really sorry I didn't save it!

    These things fascinate me to no end! I've been reading some articles on it as well and AI stuff used to be part of my previous job and I learnt a lot from there.

    jeanona wrote: »
    brittyn3 wrote: »
    Looks like we're never going to find out if it was a bot or a real life person.

    Exactly the same behavior as last time... as soon as his/it's humanity was questioned... BAM! no more posts

    Except they didn't deactivate, they were, uhm, shown the door.

    This is going to sound completely stupid, but how do you know it's a bot? Or rather how would a non human even be able to post like that?

    You guys can all loudly laugh at me if that question is seriously as stupid as it sounds...

    In the previous thread, it was a combination of things,

    Holding to mutually exclusive concepts and arguing them(with sourcing)
    Presenting ideas in a context apparently devoid of experience

    were the two at the forefront that twigged me to make the guess.

    The kicker was that as soon as I made the guess(in a manner that would be entirely ignored by a person who was as confused as the poster appeared)... I asked "Are you turing complete" which is an industry phrase. The poster stopped and deactivated immediately.

    I didn’t read the entire thread but this caught my eye.

    I didn’t think any bots were turing complete and skimming through the answers, it sounded quite on point and gave seemingly intelligent answers. More than that, no one knew whether it was or wasn’t a human (I wasn’t able to read all its posts. I think some were deleted).

    There are some bots that are getting close, and there may be a few in the wild that are and haven't been written/published on yet. That being said, Lack of human contextualization... too consistent.... not consistent enough... or as with the one that we called out before Jesuteresa... inconsistently consistent. In a narrow environment like MFP, it would certainly be possible to develop a bot that would learn and behave appropriately according to community standards.

    Some things that would/do catch my attention. Response time, response density(even the most active posters don't respond to every post... and will bow out even when convinced they're right). Even the most OCD ASD person has a discernable personality and frustration threshold. Spelling, grammar, etc. even the driest most factual post reflects the personality of the poster..

    So true. I've noticed a poster who disses Lyle McDonald all the time. He creates a number of accounts and some of you refer to him as "shouty guy"?? You think he's a bot??

    Nah, he's a bored teenager or a deranged physics post graduate student. Note the fixation on poop, and the carefully disguised curse words. Also random penis references.
  • jeanona
    jeanona Posts: 155 Member
    :) I haven't really read what he's actually ever said. Just always notice all the CAPS in his posts!