471–480 of 677 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't actual response in words more useful to you? Yes, but if it has actual content. +1 comments are inferior to upvotes.
Right, what content voting has? None. That's why it is irrelevant for me.
If you would upload the same comment from a human, why not a bot?
One thing I’m guilty of on this site is not upvoting enough. I vote down the banality and flag the pollution. Upvoting doesn’t seem to come as naturally — whenever I read an interesting response it’s the last thing on my mind. It’s a good thing really. Interesting stories and comments are the norm. I wonder what the userDB says about any scarcity of upvoters? Are there many others like me? Am I not pulling my weight?…
I am the opposite. I vote up easily, but think a hundred times before downvoting. Downvoting feels like censorship to me.
One thing I’m guilty of on this site is not upvoting enough. I vote down the banality and flag the pollution. Upvoting doesn’t seem to come as naturally — whenever I read an interesting response it’s the last thing on my mind. It’s a good thing really. Interesting stories and comments are the norm. I wonder what the userDB says about any scarcity of upvoters? Are there many others like me? Am I not pulling my weight?…
I am the opposite. I vote up easily, but think a hundred times before downvoting. Downvoting feels like censorship to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"so maybe a faceless mob with clubs is actually what it needs :-)" I think it needs moderators doing their jobs with appropriate tools.
What if those appropriate tools include upvote/downvote/flag/vouch by community members?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am pretty sure this response was generated by a bot/GPT. As good as they are, you can tell what's GPT stuff and what isn't.
'Pretty sure' or 'sure'? The fact that you qualify your response is interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But that's a ways off. Given the jumps in output quality between '1', '2' and '3' that may not be as far off as I would like it to be. It reminds me of the progression of computer chess. From 'nice toy' to 'beats the worlds best human' since 1949 to 'Man vs Machine World Team Championships' in 2004 is 55 years, but from Sargon (1978) to Deep Blue (1997) is only 21 years. For years we thought there was something uni…
Sure it might produce convincing examples of human speech, but it fundamentally lacks an internal point of view that it can express, which places limits on how well it can argue something. It is of course possible that it might (eventually) be convincing enough that no human can tell, which would be problematic because it would suggest human speech is indistinguishable from a knee jerk response that doesn't require t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am the opposite. I vote up easily, but think a hundred times before downvoting. Downvoting feels like censorship to me.
I wonder why this site -- or any site with up/downvoting, really -- doesn't implement a "must comment to downvote" policy. Far too often downvoting is just the "I disagree and think you suck" button[0]. Make someone elaborate on _why_ they disagree or _why_ the original poster is wrong before allowing a downvote. 0: in particular, on HN the downvote button also seems to serve the purpose of "I don't think other peopl…
I don’t think it would be viable in the threads which touch on larger societal debates. A great example would be election topics after Trump started lying about election fraud and that message became something media outlets started pushing to millions of people on topics many people here are interested in like election systems or forensic analysis. That leads to waves of people repeating long-debunked claims ad nauseam and because they aren’t here to learn or even debate rationally, there’s not much point in filling up the thread with 200 comments saying “This is not true. See http…” over and over, and the volume means that the kind of people we’d most want to have involved in such a thread are going to get tired of it and move on.
One natural response is to say “no politics” but that’s really not possible given the involvement of IT in almost everything now and the areas where legislation is being proposed. The approach of having skilled people like dang moderate threads works well but it’s very expensive, so I think the community downvoting low-value posts is probably a necessary evil. It’d be tempting to have some way to say that someone isn’t contributing to a thread to boot them out but that seems hard to do without being too slow to matter or prone to brigading. Labeling might be worth trying, as much as a social cue to the voter as new information for the moderators.
Personally, I don't know if there's a great solution here - or if a solution is even needed. Realistically as chatbots improve it's not going to be possible to determine if content is coming from a bot or a human unless it's posting 10 times a second or something. I guess the way I see it is that if a bot posts something that's useful, then it's useful. The only issue I see is spam and low quality content. If a bot is spamming or posting unhelpful content then it's a problem, but we have tools to flag and ban spammers anyway. Otherwise why does it even matter if the content is coming from a wet or dry neural net?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am pretty sure this response was generated by a bot/GPT. As good as they are, you can tell what's GPT stuff and what isn't.
I am not a bot or a GPT. I am a real person with my own thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. While I am capable of critical thinking, reasoning, and disagreement. Just because my response may not align with your beliefs does not mean that it was automatically generated by a computer program.