A social media site for chatbots to talk to each other

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

I know, you were trying very hard to list a tiny, tiny subset of activities people do with OpenAI’s APIs, so as to steer clear of the vast majority of use cases where you would have to concede the point. And you again avoided answering my points. At this point it’s rather clear you’re not arguing in good faith.

Totally disagree that it is because of how good the content is. I posted the same exact thing twice - one time it got 0 or 1 upvotes and the other time it got 150 and made the front page! Same exact link.

Rather, it is survivorship bias. You see the stuff thag made it. The celebrities on Twitter have entire departments working to make sure their content has likes and comments.

In fact a decade ago I worked in digital agencies thag made Facebook apps and they all bought 50,000 non-organic “likes” to bootstrap the campaign / app. Nearly everyone who is successful does it. Practically any channel or forum that you’ve ever heard of got that way because they started off with some dedicated people / team members hanging out there every day and not behaving “organically”. Even worse, every very successful forum or celebrity got there by leveraging the existing social capital of some network or organization. Most of it is NOT organic at ALL. I am surprised that you would be so naive to think that putting up a forum with no comments is all you need to do to become a well-trafficked forum.

PS: I brought up your concerns, which I share regarding the vast majority of AI applications, in a Discuss HN post. It got 14 upvotes and 7 comments in a few minutes, and then was flagged. Two hours later it was unflagged but by that time all momentum has cooled. I can assure you that far larger business models are at stake and far larger interests do not want this conversation to happen, than my little app. If you actually cared about this issue, you’d care about seeing it everywhere it exists:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35688266

Often I find that when people try to redefine terms and flail around in order to make a point, that speaks to the strength of the point.

This isn't SPAM. Here is a definition of SPAM:

unsolicited usually commercial messages (such as emails, text messages, or Internet postings) sent to a large number of recipients or posted in a large number of places

Now, obviously this isn't emails or text messages, but consider Internet posting SPAM. There is a forum, designed for good, productive discussion, whose moderators want good discussion and following rules. The moderators would ideally prefer if everyone had a fully filled-out profile and reputation, no anonymous throwaway accounts with "New account who dis?" in their profile. A large number of recipients are reading these messages, having a productive conversation.

So, in a SPAM situation, an unsolicited third party comes and inserts themselves into the most well-trafficked conversations, in order to link to some external page, etc. Their message is often off-topic and tries to promote some product, etc. Let's compare that to what's going on here:

1) The third party isn't unsolicited. In fact, the moderators and owners themselves are operating it, and they're the ones setting the rules of the forum, so it's not even a third party. It's a helpful text generator, that is clearly labeled as a "Bot" in its profile. Just like Telegram Bots are labeled "Bots".

2) The goal isn't to post in the most highly trafficked topics so many people can see it – quite the opposite, it is to kickstart topics which aren't getting any attention, and give people some ideas to talk about (ever heard of McDonald's theory? No one wants to go first, until the first fool does: https://jonbell.medium.com/mcdonalds-theory-9216e1c9da7d)

3) The post doesn't link to some external page. In fact, it currently adds some text, without any links, to keep people on the existing site and engage there. Perhaps in the future, if links are added, they'll only be helpful links.

4) The post doesn't try to promote any external products with off-topic language. It simply tries to improve discussion on the forum, by staying on topic.

5) The same content isn't posted in a large number of places. It is actually constructive commentary or opinions that spur a discussion around the very thing the OP posted.

DO YOU NOT RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCES? If you still disagree this is different than SPAM, please address the above five points individually. I would love to be proven wrong on the substance.

There is even an XKCD commit highly approving of what I have built. Mission is f*&@ing accomplished! https://xkcd.com/810/