2 edits
How could we know that a poster is an actual human and not AI or a bot?
Is it even possible to know?
You can program an AI to mimic a stereotypical right-wing or leftist poster. Could we really tell if such a program is human not? An AI like Grok is designed to be more human in it's responses. In fact, you can actually request for Grok AI to have a certain type of personality: flirtatious, sarcastic, etc.
@vivify saidI am a human being, I am not a robot.
How could we know that a poster is an actual human and not AI or a bot?
Is it even possible to know?
You can program an AI to mimic a stereotypical right-wing or leftist poster. Could we really tell if such a program is human not? An AI like Grok is designed to be more human in it's responses. In fact, you can actually request for Grok AI to have a certain type of personality: flirtatious, sarcastic, etc.
That was me pretending to be a robot pretending to be a human being. It's all getting a bit confusing. I write novels for fun, and have become obsolete, now I can just type in; 'Write a 200 page novel about a toast - rack in the style of Geoffrey Chaucer.'
Might take the fun out of it, though, think I'll keep writing...
You're framing it as human vs. AI, but that's a false choice.
An AI doesn't visit forums on its own — it has no goals, no accounts, no interest in this thread. Somewhere behind any bot post is a human who set it up, told it where to post, and what persona to use. So the real question isn't "is this poster human or AI?" It's "is this a human typing directly, or a human using AI as a megaphone?"
Either way, there's a person behind it. The AI is just the tool — like asking whether a letter was written by a person or a typewriter.
Can we always detect the difference? Probably not reliably. But the intent is always human.
@Bish saidI agree. However, in 20 years or so it may be possible. Such as playing a "Chess Engine" with different AI persona's for different levels of chess rating; or something similar too that. I wouldn't doubt it at all. Either way, I'm fairly certain I will not be here then; or not here much longer than that. 🙂
You're framing it as human vs. AI, but that's a false choice.
An AI doesn't visit forums on its own — it has no goals, no accounts, no interest in this thread. Somewhere behind any bot post is a human who set it up, told it where to post, and what persona to use. So the real question isn't "is this poster human or AI?" It's "is this a human typing directly, or a human using ...[text shortened]... iter.
Can we always detect the difference? Probably not reliably. But the intent is always human.
- Joined
- 04 May 26
- Moves
- 804
Bots are all over all social media.
If you look at replies you can see the same posts by different accounts.
Another thing to look for is a reply that basically says the same thing as the original post.
Not here, I'm talking about all social media.
This site is like 30 people in a big circle and everyone is throwing spears and trying to hit the people they don't like.
1 edit
@PuzZuLz saidWhen forum replies match each other, it is a sure sign that they are only regurgitating the latest banality from Trump's own mouth.
Bots are all over all social media.
If you look at replies you can see the same posts by different accounts.
Another thing to look for is a reply that basically says the same thing as the original post.
Not here, I'm talking about all social media.
This site is like 30 people in a big circle and everyone is throwing spears and trying to hit the people they don't like.
Not AI, they're not smart enough for that.
@Bish saidI suppose its a question of validation and dominance. Do you play to win or is it a social past time where its not about win or lose but how you play the game? Same with debates. Do you want to crush your opponents point of view or are you having a conversation to exchange points of view. The validation part says you need to win on your own terms vs the person who wants to win at all costs and uses AI or whatever tool they feel will bring victory. As long as it makes you happy. Can you boast about not using AI to play when your results are below average? Can you boast you only looked up a few google searches as opposed to finding a better argument using chat.....
You're framing it as human vs. AI, but that's a false choice.
An AI doesn't visit forums on its own — it has no goals, no accounts, no interest in this thread. Somewhere behind any bot post is a human who set it up, told it where to post, and what persona to use. So the real question isn't "is this poster human or AI?" It's "is this a human typing directly, or a human using ...[text shortened]... iter.
Can we always detect the difference? Probably not reliably. But the intent is always human.
I dont know but it seems pointless "cheating" when nobody cares about your "wins" anyways...
@kmax87 saidCheers Clanmate ~ well met
I suppose its a question of validation and dominance. Do you play to win or is it a social past time where its not about win or lose but how you play the game? Same with debates. Do you want to crush your opponents point of view or are you having a conversation to exchange points of view. The validation part says you need to win on your own terms vs the person who wants to win ...[text shortened]... ....
I dont know but it seems pointless "cheating" when nobody cares about your "wins" anyways...
It's not really about winning and losing. If anything wins or loses, it should be the ideas — not the people.
On a debate team, we are judged on our ideas and how well we express them. Here many times it goes quickly to personality. Many of our debate friends resist attacking ideas — they attack the person instead, or they just ignore the post.
And nobody changes their mind here anyway, so what's a "win" even worth? A good argument should raise all boats. Everyone walks away with something new to think about.
As for AI — it's not a debate weapon. It's an editor. It has no ideas of its own. What it's good at is making writing clearer and asking the questions we forgot to ask. The ideas and the answers still have to come from a person. The person provides the judgment.
Is hiring an editor cheating? Writers do it all the time — writing and editing are different skills.
If the goal is to crush somebody, maybe any tool looks suspect. But if the goal is to say something clear and worth reading, a good editor isn't cheating. It's caring about the quality of the conversation.
1 edit
@vivify
Anyone who really wanted to know could re-read any number of @KellyJay's threads, then compare them with this:
Thread 205437
Two features of the AI-bot's summary of @kellyJays 'style' stand out immediately:
1. It's prolix.
2. It's grammatically correct, including punctuation.
@moonbus saidSolid essay on why a good framework has to be able to fail. The one thing it never says is what would count as evidence against design. If nothing could — then by its own standard, that's the part to be suspicious of.
@vivify
Anyone who really wanted to know could re-read any number of @KellyJay's threads, then compare them with this:
Thread 205437
Two features of the AI-bot's summary of @kellyJays 'style' stand out immediately:
1. It's prolix.
2. It's grammatically correct, including punctuation.
😉
@Bish saidI know that was not the point you were making ~ but I could not resist. 🙄
Solid essay on why a good framework has to be able to fail. The one thing it never says is what would count as evidence against design. If nothing could — then by its own standard, that's the part to be suspicious of.
😉
@Bish saidWell, but that is just the point, isn't it? The real @KellyJay is never that coherent, quite apart from the solecisms.
Solid essay on why a good framework has to be able to fail. The one thing it never says is what would count as evidence against design. If nothing could — then by its own standard, that's the part to be suspicious of.
😉
Nudge nudge, wink wink, know whatta mean ?
@moonbus saidHa — fair. But that's kind of the point, isn't it?
Well, but that is just the point, isn't it? The real @KellyJay is never that coherent, quite apart from the solecisms.
Nudge nudge, wink wink, know whatta mean ?
If AI helps KellyJay get his thoughts across more clearly than he could alone, that's a good thing, not a knock. And honestly, a lot of what he writes reads like he's working it out for himself as much as arguing with us — so having something to talk it through with is close to ideal.
That's who this stuff was built for. People like him, people like me. We both now have an editor who's always awake. 😉
@moonbus saidThere are AI tools now that un-AI the AI writing style. It mostly just adds commas in the wrong place and creates typos.
@vivify
Anyone who really wanted to know could re-read any number of @KellyJay's threads, then compare them with this:
Thread 205437
Two features of the AI-bot's summary of @kellyJays 'style' stand out immediately:
1. It's prolix.
2. It's grammatically correct, including punctuation.
@Indonesia-Phil saidI've never even heard of a toast-rack before, but looked it up and of course Amazon sells 75 different versions of it for between $8.99 and $22.49.
I am a human being, I am not a robot.
That was me pretending to be a robot pretending to be a human being. It's all getting a bit confusing. I write novels for fun, and have become obsolete, now I can just type in; 'Write a 200 page novel about a toast - rack in the style of Geoffrey Chaucer.'
Might take the fun out of it, though, think I'll keep writing...