RE: [BOTS] Steemit's First Community Based Decision on Bots - YOUR VOTE COUNTS - To Be? Or Not To Be? - Details Inside
@weenis The problem isn't the bots. The problem is the owners.
A bot is nothing but a force multiplier for it's owners.
But you have to interact with the community in a responsible manner.
This is why I've been pushing so hard for STEEMBOTS and a voluntary code of conduct, with leashcodes and a bot registry.
I've got 5 bots on here. One of which is a chatter bot that frequently gets chatted up like a real person, even by people who are seething bot haters. Never been flagged, never been downvoted and earns about $20 USD a day in upvotes for commentary.
But you have to know a few things about NLP, and you have to squelch the bot when it has less than 98% probability of formulating a coherent response from it's ontological matrix. That means conceptual extraction and having a broad, deep and solid ontology which means letting the other humans train him. But for that, you have to supervise and own it if people call out your bots.
Dumping more code for spam bots is going to raise the level of bot hate here.
It's also going to make it harder for those of us who are trying to research human AI interactions and also makes it harder for the police bots and the context aware AI like @jeeves to do their job as well.
The new rules have undoubtedly made it harder for simple bots to get any love. It has opened significant doors for abusive bots to hammer on people's reputations and it has alienated a lot of people who just want to say simple encouraging things.
However it does provide enormous opportunities for the right kinds of bots, effectively making them uncensorable. Which was what I was trying to tell Dan but I guess somehow that got missed.
Anyways @weenis , I saw you upvoted the STEEMBOTS thread. I really hope instead of playing steemit this way, you'll come join us at steembots and learn to build some really cool bots that no one is thinking about right now.
For instance I have plans to build a bot that can spot catfish and sockpuppets and also detect copyright spam that even cheetah is missing.
Yeah well you better tweek your bots better because they are destroying my reputation and therefore limiting my creativity and visability.
@pompe72 This is @weenis's thread. @williambanks Has been working on different automation software. I talked with him about it a few days ago. He's not the one who is trying to hold us hostage, or creating an army of unwanted robotic downvoting overlords.
First of all, what do mean by "us"?
Second, at this point, how can I know if I'm replying to a bot or not?
How can you know if you're replying to bot or not?
And most importantly, how do you know if you're a bot or not?
because at this point, I don't know if i'm a bot or not.
@pompe72 My advice is to realize that you have never responded to a person on steemit or any other website.
You responded to an identity who posted something. That identity is only a "bot" when it is low value and fails to cross the uncanny valley.
This is true of all identities whether those identities are being driven at that moment by humans or automatons.
However as @weenis has demonstrated here, the bots have owners. Furthermore any human can at any point in time, hire someone to handle their account. The handler or driver can be someone off of fiver, or a brother, sister, or other close kin, or it can be a bot.
Frankly I've seen more "low value" content come from supposedly "human" accounts than I have from bots (see the people I flagged in here and why). @dantheman flagged several people who he suspected of being bots simply because he felt they were of low value. I know because I've had to lobby whales to fix these poor guys, because once he flags you, you're pretty much invisible forever now.
Mute is useful, if you're worried about getting cooties or something, use it and you'll never see that identity again regardless of who or what is driving it.
@pompe72 Not my bots I'm not the owner of this thread.
@williambanks Fascinating this flagging business. Is it just me or is it highly unbalanced?
Seems like one flag is worth many upvotes and that hardly makes any sense. Do you know what the ratio is, or even better how to find out?
I don't think I saw that on the white paper.
Anyways. I think there's a reputation problem on Steemit, been planning a post about it. It should not be as easy to wreck someone's reputation with a flag, or atleast, it should be weighed by SP or some other stake based scarced resource so that the flagging bot army can't make financial sense.
Still, there seems to be quite a few doss vectors with steemit. Specially when considering bots.
At some point it'd make sense for it to cost something to comment or post. Otherwise, boom, another dos vector.
There needs to be a completely neutral 3rd party process to clear up any problems that arise. An ad hoc courtroom of sorts. BUT I'd like to see it so that everybody involved in the process puts up money towards resolving it... Indeed, anybody witnesses can put up money to try andd support one side. Money should be held in escrow.. BETS.. AND after debate/proof offered by BOTH sides and they both say they are satisfied through the speaker they have hired to help them that THEY believe they have been fairly and accurately depicted and representative. AFTER both sides have said as much, and BOTH sides have paid out 50 cents to EVERY witness present... Who promises to repost to hell and back IF what is reportted on the outcome BY the speaker after the VOTE is innaccurate... The only caveat being, if you want to have the speaker speak for you, you need to pay you 50cents to the speaker. BOTHagrieved parties are BOTH responsible for hiring A speaker or their own speaker. AND they always get to choose their OWN speaker as matter of law. You need to put a blanket over the speaker's shoulder... BOTH agrieved parties then pin as much money as they want up and down the blanket... AND then the purse is pinned on.. so that EVERYBODY present can pay their 50 center to the speaker to be heard. after the speaker/s have spoken for everybody present, there is usually a meal - paid for by BOTH the aggrieved parties. After the meal... it becomes a contest... Anybody is allowed to participate IF they were present for the whole process including meal. A blanket is laid out on the floor for each of the aggrieved parties... Everybody who is present is now allowed to walk up and DUMP their quaters or any money they want into the blanket of the person whom They believe is more accurate with the truth. It becomes a contest then, of who believes that somebody is telling more the truth than the other. I've seen this happen. It's a ritual for dispute resolution in Coast Salish culture. I wonder if it could be adapated for Steemet as a CHOICE in "arbitration" and "private tort law" self-enforcing. Anybody think this souinds good. I wish DrDavidDFriedman@Chicago School was here. He'd get what I was trying to do.