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?
Replies
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Irishman1970 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Irishman1970 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Irishman1970 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Irishman1970 wrote: »
are you asking me to provide with peer reviewed dietary analysis that a bacon western cheeseburger is less healthy than a chicken breast with balsamic salad?
No, people are asking specifically about the context of the overall diet. We are not asking you to compare two specific meals.
We're asking why the person who meets their nutritional needs with a variety of foods including a bacon cheeseburger is better off than the person who is meeting their nutritional needs while excluding bacon cheeseburgers (and, presumably, their components -- beef, bacon, cheese, and bread).
Foods don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in the context of an overall diet. That is what people are asking you about.
Although, a bacon cheeseburger is probably more balanced than a balsamic vinegar salad with chicken breast.
nah
2 meats and nitrates - lettuce onion ring and BBq sauce (sugar) vs. Chicken breast peppers - still lettuce - tomatos - cucumbers - hard boiled eggs vinegar AND 1/2 the calories
Why are two meats worse than one meat?
What on earth is wrong with lettuce and onion rings?
I was combining them as there is not real nutritional benefit difference between the 2 - What on earth is wrong with lettuce and onion rings? - nothing - I just like my onion sauteed not breaded
Breaded?? That's also a crime against humanity. Onions should be raw. especially on a bacon cheeseburger.
I'll gladly take up to 1/3 of a large onion on my Cheeseburger.
I think this conversation is giving us insight into the kind of burger Irishman1970 likes (BBQ sauce, breaded onion rings on it). Interesting that he assumes that's the kind of burger everyone else wants.
Not, of course, that it couldn't fit into a reasonable diet on occasion if it was what someone enjoyed.
Eating tons of chicken breast daily seems to me more of an issue (lack of variety) than occasionally having a bacon cheeseburger.
I also don't get how someone who seems to think fat and carbs are bad gets to 4000+ calories. It can't all be lemon chicken breast and salad with vinegar.
I can't imagine trying to hit 4000 calories on salad and lean meat. I'd feel like a stuffed pig the entire time so working out would be impossible, I'd barf.
But also I learned something. Fitness is about what you eat. So step away from the equipment people, what you need is salad and grilled chicken. Quick, let the Olympics committee know everyone is wasting their time, they just need to step away from the pizza!
"So step away from the equipment people" you go ahead and do that - I will keep training 2 a days
Only 2 a days? Why not 3? Why not 4? Wouldn’t working out more be better?
You mentioned going out with friends, why? Shouldn’t you be working out? Optimizing your lean mean fuel burning machine?
Do you have a financial budget? Save, spend on essentials, spend on discretionary items? Why the discretionary items? Why not just save everything that isn’t needed for your basic life requirements? Wouldn’t that be better? More financially “fit”?
And yes I realize I still have about 10 pages to go and this thread has likely taken many turns since this post but this always strikes me when posters say we should always be striving for optimal nutrition... but doesn’t that apply to other parts of our lives? I could work more, make more money, save more money, but then I would have less time to hang out with my kids. I could volunteer more, but then I would have less time to visit a friend going through a rough patch with her husband. Life isn’t about striving for optimal or perfection with every decision we make - it’s about balance.
MyFitness Pal is primarily for nutrition, which is why many people will talk optimizing nutrition.
I am not sure where you live, but in my country, we have an epidemic of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, among other chronic diseases. Many of these diseases could be prevented and possibly reversed if people began striving for optimal nutrition.
Improvements in diet have a "step wise" improvement in health. The more you put it into it, the more you get out of it.
Personally, striving for optimal nutrition and health gives me far more joy then eating a poor diet or being inactive.
what prevents someone from getting cancer? I would like to know. reversing it? sure if chemo or radiation or other types of treatments put it into remission sure but it can still come back at any time.Ive know healthy people who ate healthy all their lives,were active and still got cancer,ive known many who had throat cancer and never smoked a day in their life. the other things yes its very possible to prevent, but some heart diseases cannot be reversed,some are genetic.
Yeah, I was diagnosed with (thank G-d, highly-treatable, highly-survivable, caught-it-early, non-aggressive) bladder cancer. I was going down the checklist of risk factors and don't have a single one on that list. The lesions have been removed and I just finished BCG treatment to (hopefully!) keep it from coming back, but I don't know a thing I should have done differently to prevent it.
Note: I also don't fall into any of the non-preventable risk categories like being male, over 55, of a certain racial/ethnic background, etc.
I am glad you caught it early.0 -
Strawberry-pink urine was my panic button...2
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »Strawberry-pink urine was my panic button...
Good thing you were not colorblind
1 -
Wrong thread0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Irishman1970 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Irishman1970 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Irishman1970 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Irishman1970 wrote: »
are you asking me to provide with peer reviewed dietary analysis that a bacon western cheeseburger is less healthy than a chicken breast with balsamic salad?
No, people are asking specifically about the context of the overall diet. We are not asking you to compare two specific meals.
We're asking why the person who meets their nutritional needs with a variety of foods including a bacon cheeseburger is better off than the person who is meeting their nutritional needs while excluding bacon cheeseburgers (and, presumably, their components -- beef, bacon, cheese, and bread).
Foods don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in the context of an overall diet. That is what people are asking you about.
Although, a bacon cheeseburger is probably more balanced than a balsamic vinegar salad with chicken breast.
nah
2 meats and nitrates - lettuce onion ring and BBq sauce (sugar) vs. Chicken breast peppers - still lettuce - tomatos - cucumbers - hard boiled eggs vinegar AND 1/2 the calories
Why are two meats worse than one meat?
What on earth is wrong with lettuce and onion rings?
I was combining them as there is not real nutritional benefit difference between the 2 - What on earth is wrong with lettuce and onion rings? - nothing - I just like my onion sauteed not breaded
Breaded?? That's also a crime against humanity. Onions should be raw. especially on a bacon cheeseburger.
I'll gladly take up to 1/3 of a large onion on my Cheeseburger.
I think this conversation is giving us insight into the kind of burger Irishman1970 likes (BBQ sauce, breaded onion rings on it). Interesting that he assumes that's the kind of burger everyone else wants.
Not, of course, that it couldn't fit into a reasonable diet on occasion if it was what someone enjoyed.
Eating tons of chicken breast daily seems to me more of an issue (lack of variety) than occasionally having a bacon cheeseburger.
I also don't get how someone who seems to think fat and carbs are bad gets to 4000+ calories. It can't all be lemon chicken breast and salad with vinegar.
I can't imagine trying to hit 4000 calories on salad and lean meat. I'd feel like a stuffed pig the entire time so working out would be impossible, I'd barf.
But also I learned something. Fitness is about what you eat. So step away from the equipment people, what you need is salad and grilled chicken. Quick, let the Olympics committee know everyone is wasting their time, they just need to step away from the pizza!
"So step away from the equipment people" you go ahead and do that - I will keep training 2 a days
Only 2 a days? Why not 3? Why not 4? Wouldn’t working out more be better?
You mentioned going out with friends, why? Shouldn’t you be working out? Optimizing your lean mean fuel burning machine?
Do you have a financial budget? Save, spend on essentials, spend on discretionary items? Why the discretionary items? Why not just save everything that isn’t needed for your basic life requirements? Wouldn’t that be better? More financially “fit”?
And yes I realize I still have about 10 pages to go and this thread has likely taken many turns since this post but this always strikes me when posters say we should always be striving for optimal nutrition... but doesn’t that apply to other parts of our lives? I could work more, make more money, save more money, but then I would have less time to hang out with my kids. I could volunteer more, but then I would have less time to visit a friend going through a rough patch with her husband. Life isn’t about striving for optimal or perfection with every decision we make - it’s about balance.
MyFitness Pal is primarily for nutrition, which is why many people will talk optimizing nutrition.
I am not sure where you live, but in my country, we have an epidemic of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, among other chronic diseases. Many of these diseases could be prevented and possibly reversed if people began striving for optimal nutrition.
Improvements in diet have a "step wise" improvement in health. The more you put it into it, the more you get out of it.
Personally, striving for optimal nutrition and health gives me far more joy then eating a poor diet or being inactive.
I’m not sure how you got “eat a poor diet and be inactive” or “don’t make any strides toward health improvements” from my post. The point was, directed to the since departed poster who kept creating ridiculous straw man examples and suggesting that everyone should always choose the (in his opinion) objectively healthier choice when faced with a decision; that there are myriad of opportunities in life to make decisions and sometimes we go for optimal or perfection, and sometimes we go for personal satisfaction and enjoyment. That people who apply that logic to food (always choosing lean chicken and salad instead of a burger and fries) don’t seem to have the same philosophy about finances, or work life balance, or their education.... they understand there is a balance and trade off needed in those areas so why not the same approach when it comes to diet?4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I’m not sure how you got “eat a poor diet and be inactive” or “don’t make any strides toward health improvements” from my post. The point was, directed to the since departed poster who kept creating ridiculous straw man examples and suggesting that everyone should always choose the (in his opinion) objectively healthier choice when faced with a decision; that there are myriad of opportunities in life to make decisions and sometimes we go for optimal or perfection, and sometimes we go for personal satisfaction and enjoyment. That people who apply that logic to food (always choosing lean chicken and salad instead of a burger and fries) don’t seem to have the same philosophy about finances, or work life balance, or their education.... they understand there is a balance and trade off needed in those areas so why not the same approach when it comes to diet?
That seems like a really good point to me, WinoGelato, hardly worthy of the reply it got.
I think this could be an interesting discussion, so I'd really like @ugofatcat to respond.
Why on earth would you interpret "you don't need to stress out about always being perfect in your diet" (even if we all agreed on what perfection would be, which we don't, as I think 33 g of carbs at a meal is hardly something dreadful, nor is over 40% carbs in a diet somehow bad for all, and those are the things the departed poster was claiming) as meaning "don't give nutrition any thought at all and be sedentary"?
Is this just a communication problem?5 -
A "diet" is simply the amalgam of all the foods you eat. If you choose to structure your intake in a specific way that fits with a particular fad "(ie Low carb, ketogenic, low fat) then maybe you refer to it as that sort of diet. So what though, everyone has a diet and if you are overweight it is ultimately because your diet relative to your activity level causes you to gain weight and the only way to deal with that is to either change your diet or change the amount of activity you have....both of which are perfectly reasonable approaches.9
-
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).
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!2 -
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..5 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions