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?
Options
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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:0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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.
Agreed1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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.
Disagree7 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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.
Disagree
3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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..
The only part that doesn’t make any sense to me is why anybody would waste their time creating a “bro bot” to come on a nutrition forum and spit out bro-ey woo “advice” to people.6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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..
The only part that doesn’t make any sense to me is why anybody would waste their time creating a “bro bot” to come on a nutrition forum and spit out bro-ey woo “advice” to people.
I mean... there's literally some who goes through the trouble of creating hundreds of new accounts just to shout how calories don't exist in bad English. Some people have weird ideas of fun.10 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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.
Disagree
NO!0 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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.
Disagree
YES!2 -
What a long strange thread. Read the whole thing in one sitting.
I don't want onion rings on my burger.
I think any diet could work for weight loss if it causes the person to eat fewer calories. A lot of diet plans don't talk about calories and set up a person to lose a lot of weight fast. They severley restrict and eventually a person finds it hard to stick with. The dieter often blames themself and repeats the cycle with other very restrictive plans.
I think calorie counting tends to work more consistantly and be more sustainable long term because people are eating what is right for them personally.
I think if more people were aware of #1 how many calories they really need and #2 how many calories they consume then they would have a better shot at maintaining a healthy weight.
8 -
Irishman1970 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.4 -
Irishman1970 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.3 -
I just need to know that I can have an indulgence. Most of the time, I don't actually have it, but just knowing that if I want to, I can walk into Baskin-Robbins and grab a scoop of the flavor of the month if I want it, yes even if it's one of the 'full-fat premium 320 calories per scoop' flavors, and still lose weight helps me stick to it.7
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »I just need to know that I can have an indulgence. Most of the time, I don't actually have it, but just knowing that if I want to, I can walk into Baskin-Robbins and grab a scoop of the flavor of the month if I want it, yes even if it's one of the 'full-fat premium 320 calories per scoop' flavors, and still lose weight helps me stick to it.
This is me too. Knowing I could do it, without it derailing me, made a big difference.
Once I let go of the restrictive "good" and "bad" and realized that I could have it, it took a lot of the guilt and shame off it.8 -
stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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.stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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??0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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.stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline 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.4 -
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??
No. He's a dude whose elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor. He's a few fries short of a happy meal. Not playing cards with a full deck.8 -
I haven't really read what he's actually ever said. Just always notice all the CAPS in his posts!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions