Weavrs - autonomous Twitter bots • Hacker News Board

Re: Weavrs - autonomous Twitter bots

#41

Post by evanlivingston » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 5:58 PM UTC

sequoia wrote: post #38

evanlivingston wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is bragging about the algorithms here. No one claims it passes the Turing test. The AI isn't the real point. Furthermore, since when does someone's name + picture pass as their identitym That's exactly what this trio is pointing out. After doing some research, it appears that these guys in the video are not programmers, but artists and professors. http://zeroinfluence.wordpress.com/projects-archi…

"can we stop judging the quality of their algorithms (which they're probably not interested in) and instead critique the artistic value of emulating human online behavior?" I actually addressed this first, before the software output. They are being jerks and not demonstrating anything interesting. Please tell me: what is the artistic value? 'Thru this work we now know it's possible to piss people off by putting their…

I'm still a little caught up in the "identity theft" thing. Names and appearances are not the limits of one's identity. If this were the case, halloween would be the criminal's holiday. The trio, perhaps inadvertently, point out a fundamental flaw with both twitter and how the user approaches it. If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dreaming of %x and %y", x, y) then is there really an identity to steal? This man is fighting for his unique right to present 140 characters, a string of characters (his name) next to 5329 pixels captured at one specific moment in his life, all grouped together? By what virtue does he own those rights?

Re: Weavrs - autonomous Twitter bots

#42

Post by novalis » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 6:15 PM UTC

sequoia wrote: post #38

evanlivingston wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is bragging about the algorithms here. No one claims it passes the Turing test. The AI isn't the real point. Furthermore, since when does someone's name + picture pass as their identitym That's exactly what this trio is pointing out. After doing some research, it appears that these guys in the video are not programmers, but artists and professors. http://zeroinfluence.wordpress.com/projects-archi…

"can we stop judging the quality of their algorithms (which they're probably not interested in) and instead critique the artistic value of emulating human online behavior?" I actually addressed this first, before the software output. They are being jerks and not demonstrating anything interesting. Please tell me: what is the artistic value? 'Thru this work we now know it's possible to piss people off by putting their…

They keep reframing it to cover the vacuum, going to the point of sugesting the photo license from the wiki page entitles them to do what they want and that the portrayed person doesn't understand it, this borders lunacy if it wasn't so obvious how poorly prepared they are. Like the software one day appeared out of nothing, had they been able. No pseudo eclectic goal post moving will explain this mess in the end and the consumation of all this adds up to a waste of time. Hope they pull the most important lessons out of this and reframe their efforts to fields they are able to work in.

Re: Weavrs - autonomous Twitter bots

#43

Post by novalis » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 6:58 PM UTC

evanlivingston wrote: post #41

sequoia wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"can we stop judging the quality of their algorithms (which they're probably not interested in) and instead critique the artistic value of emulating human online behavior?" I actually addressed this first, before the software output. They are being jerks and not demonstrating anything interesting. Please tell me: what is the artistic value? 'Thru this work we now know it's possible to piss people off by putting their…

I'm still a little caught up in the "identity theft" thing. Names and appearances are not the limits of one's identity. If this were the case, halloween would be the criminal's holiday. The trio, perhaps inadvertently, point out a fundamental flaw with both twitter and how the user approaches it. If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dreaming of %x and %y", x, y) then is there really an…

Don't get caught up to the point you write about it with a damage control approach.

"If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dreaming of %x and %y", x, y) then is there really an identity to steal?"

Is this turning to some introduction to awkward online eugenics or what... You don't know that impersonation isn't something a creative commons license on a photo from wikipedia was made for ? Do they have the right to create a substitutive persona to establish contacts with others ? Was there a change to the law and no one sent the memo or something... Differentiation is intrinsic to identity, you don't have to display it like a onus. What are you on about ? So a bot with your name on it, that would tweet "comments" on the weather and caviar, would render you non existant, voiding of the hability to contest impersonation ? That just has that touch of the same non sensical dribble that funnyjunk lawyer has, where are you going with that.

Natural rights cease because someone made a bot ? Whisky Tango Foxtrot. Hold the internet presses people.

"By what virtue does he own those rights?"

Maybe because when he signed up for the service he had those rights then and didn't give them away. Yeah, probably because of that. People accept terms of service when signing up to online services by their own predisposition and free will. They enter a contract, see where this is going. Bots that impersonate people that accept terms of service don't have precedence just because some pseudo experimental trio thought it would be a good project. They don't own his rights. That is the framing that causes the problem and why they are at fault when trying to turn the discussion to some indefensible position. They failed miserably at it.

That halloween criminal's holiday day... honestly, if you had to go make an account just to sprinkle this conversation with that piece of golden web dust/insight, you should have saved yourself the trouble. Honestly there are other places for that sort of thing. In the end it is really funny how people botching a project make this sort of thing pop up. Had a laught, but like a little britain comedy series used to state: "Computer says no."

Re: Weavrs - autonomous Twitter bots

#44

Post by stfu » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 9:47 PM UTC

novalis wrote: post #43

evanlivingston wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still a little caught up in the "identity theft" thing. Names and appearances are not the limits of one's identity. If this were the case, halloween would be the criminal's holiday. The trio, perhaps inadvertently, point out a fundamental flaw with both twitter and how the user approaches it. If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dreaming of %x and %y", x, y) then is there really an…

Don't get caught up to the point you write about it with a damage control approach. "If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dreaming of %x and %y", x, y) then is there really an identity to steal?" Is this turning to some introduction to awkward online eugenics or what... You don't know that impersonation isn't something a creative commons license on a photo from wikipedia was made for ?…

How is this different from somebody discovering for the first time Wikipedia and becoming all defensive, that there is an article on him, that they are using a picture of him and that he didn't approve that one personally. As far as I can see, they put in the bot-about a clear line that it was a Wiki based bot.

Especially since the comments were so nonsensical one could even argue that the bot was intended to persiflage the nonsensical Tweets by pseudo-celebrities. To bring the argument to its final destination: People responding to the fake bot, are similar to those, who were watching Chaplin's The Great Dictator and wondering why Hitler movies were showing in cinemas across the USA.

Re: Weavrs - autonomous Twitter bots

#45

Post by evanlivingston » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 10:43 PM UTC

novalis wrote: post #43

evanlivingston wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still a little caught up in the "identity theft" thing. Names and appearances are not the limits of one's identity. If this were the case, halloween would be the criminal's holiday. The trio, perhaps inadvertently, point out a fundamental flaw with both twitter and how the user approaches it. If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dreaming of %x and %y", x, y) then is there really an…

Don't get caught up to the point you write about it with a damage control approach. "If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dreaming of %x and %y", x, y) then is there really an identity to steal?" Is this turning to some introduction to awkward online eugenics or what... You don't know that impersonation isn't something a creative commons license on a photo from wikipedia was made for ?…

@novalis, your points are a little unclear. I am unclear what "Differentiation is intrinsic to identity" means. A bot with my name and image would not render me non-existent, but it might seriously compromise my online identity. I view that as a problem. I check a radio box to some terms of service when creating an online profile, and so must a bot. But because I _understand_ the words does that mean I am more protected than the bot? They don't own his rights, but does the human? The terms of service are just words, which describe laws and agreements humans made. These are not unbreakable, infallible laws. Furthermore, the bot is certainly not subject to these laws, perhaps the creators are. But then again, is a mother responsible for the crimes of its child. I realize this metaphor does not hold up ( the trio designed the bot to be nefarious by nature ).

They did not fail miserably. They seriously perturbed the man whose identity the bot assumed because his identity weak in the first place. The mere fact that the man was perturbed I think means a victory for the trio. The online (crappy) bot gives the man a run for his a run for his money, and that's disconcerting. If the bot was so ineffective, or the project so pointless, why then is it such a problem that the bot impersonates another human. What's _really_ the problem here? What are we all upset about? Once again, If I pretend to be Steve Jobs, where is the problem. If I pretend to be no name author, where is the problem? If a bot dresses up and pretends to be a no name author, what infraction is it making?