So are you like, tentative about it, or did you conclude that it isn't a bot comment in the end? If the latter, what was the ultimate rationale? Did you check their post history or something?
Rather you're a bad comprehender of what words mean.
What they said was what it looks like, and in fact it does look exactly like what they said.
The comment contains the exact same content and value as a bot comment. It doesn't matter who or what wrote it, the critique of the comment itself holds water.
So the critique was not "a bot wrote this" it was "either a bot wrote this, or a human wrote a comment that is no better than the ones bots write".
You know what else a human might do even worse than a bot a lot of times? A bot would read this and apologize for getting something so wrong.
It wasn't even a critique of the comment. I was just pointing out the text of the comment resembled a bot comment on youtube shorts- almost an exact keyword match.
Suffice to say, I'd thus kindly reject being a "bad comprehender of what words mean", thank you very much. It was a perfectly reasonable initial reading of their comment as far as I'm concerned. It's ambiguous. Happens.
The fact that "is this AI? this is AI." is a damn near fixture of every thread these days, doesn't help.
"I didn't expect to understand this topic like with most articles about weird shit on Wikipedia but wow, that animation actually brought the DC of grokking that knowledge within the reach of my INT modifier! Like super cool, dude!"
How's this? Is it more human-like now?
(your feedback may be used to improve the model for everyone)
Maybe you're a bad judge of what comments are botted?
I didn't say it was a bot comment, I said it looks like a bot comment. Many of the shorts Youtube shows me are almost identical to that message.
So are you like, tentative about it, or did you conclude that it isn't a bot comment in the end? If the latter, what was the ultimate rationale? Did you check their post history or something?
1 reply →
Rather you're a bad comprehender of what words mean.
What they said was what it looks like, and in fact it does look exactly like what they said.
The comment contains the exact same content and value as a bot comment. It doesn't matter who or what wrote it, the critique of the comment itself holds water.
So the critique was not "a bot wrote this" it was "either a bot wrote this, or a human wrote a comment that is no better than the ones bots write".
You know what else a human might do even worse than a bot a lot of times? A bot would read this and apologize for getting something so wrong.
It wasn't even a critique of the comment. I was just pointing out the text of the comment resembled a bot comment on youtube shorts- almost an exact keyword match.
2 replies →
I can play this game too:
I never actually said they are a bad judge of what comments are botted, just merely suggested it as a possibility.
Otherwise:
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html
https://youtu.be/IJEaMtNN_dM
Suffice to say, I'd thus kindly reject being a "bad comprehender of what words mean", thank you very much. It was a perfectly reasonable initial reading of their comment as far as I'm concerned. It's ambiguous. Happens.
The fact that "is this AI? this is AI." is a damn near fixture of every thread these days, doesn't help.
"I didn't expect to understand this topic like with most articles about weird shit on Wikipedia but wow, that animation actually brought the DC of grokking that knowledge within the reach of my INT modifier! Like super cool, dude!"
How's this? Is it more human-like now?
(your feedback may be used to improve the model for everyone)