Topic: The J.A.R.V.I.S AutoReply Protocol Initiative (JARPI) - Powered by ChatGPT - page 3. (Read 917 times)

...and these things keep happening that at some point, I'll ask myself why some peeps choose to learn and get anything done the hard way; I mean, it's much more simple to be conscientious... Has spamming ever Paid anyone ??...
Now about the AI spam? That's exactly the same logic I tried to surpass in my last post on this thread; who knows how rugged 'em clodpoll will become in future? - Especially when they've been given a stressless route to either taunt or cheat in here...
P.S: I believe alot of rookies that have lived meagrely in the time past and have realized the future trend, won't get registered in a bid to learn but end up reading Artificially developed ideas - a type which is LIMITED?? ...that would simply mean everything in the adage that says "the hunter could prolly become the hunted"... Please, y'all be careful about the decisions you make.... It's not even about me, it's about the future to come.

Sandra 🧑‍🦰

This is already something else than the OP's original idea (at least as I perceived it). This was a bot that would make self-moderating threads easier. Where the OP of these threads could request to use this bot to moderate the thread. A bot to help with that can be useful for doing ANN or something like that.

Yeah, that's true. But, I like to think that I can tell when I'm reading a redundant post [1], and I would completely trust your judgment, and o_e_l_e_o's, Foxpup's, n0nce's, DarkStar_'s, DireWolfM14's, etc. in determining the same. (Not exhaustive and in no particular order, I'm just picking a few names off the top of my head.)

I really feel like people are sleeping on what a good thing a properly implemented version of this idea would be. Anyway, my thoughts on this are spread out over my last few posts, and I've done a bang-up job of derailing NAT's thread, so I'm bowing out for now. (PM me for continued discussion, if you like.)

[1] I guess, my definition of "redundant" (for the purposes of this system) is when I can defensibly say "no" to the following question: "Is this post likely to be missed (by anyone but the author) if it were deleted?". Now, before anyone says: "Yeah, but who are you to determine that?", that's the whole point of the system, no individual would have the power to affect things too much, and if mobs form that end up misusing the system en masse, then an "open logs" policy and the threat of negative feedback will put things right again pretty quickly.

Then what could be the possible solution? Just let them do shit? Recently I saw people report some AI Written content that was not been removed yet. Officially they are not violating the rules yet. Plagiarism is getting more tolerance from Global Mods. I think a Perm ban is too harsh for mistakes like plagiarism, especially if it's done once or twice and done by someone who made some positive contribution. But these days, your plagiarism reporting thread got a bunch of reports where the same users are doing the same shit repeatedly, and Mods handled those reports without punishment.

Now, Come to AI Spam. It doesn't have a rule yet. I don't think reporting them has any benefits. I feel like I saw a thread from a Global Mod's alt. He was talking about plagiarism rules and punishment. Couldn't find it anymore. Aww, it seems I am going off-topic.

I'm thinking of something like the following:

Instead of randomly intruding into random people's threads, a topic starter could "opt in" to enhanced spam scrubbing by placing a special bbcode inside the OP, that (among other things) contains a "percentage spaminess threshold" that applies to all replies.

Then, I have J.A.R.V.I.S monitor the thread and score each person's reply, and the ones that fall short of the spamming score, I report these replies, or maybe I relay the posts to your bot if you can offer a faster way to delete those posts.

As an example (taken from a random thread, and not intended to criticize anyone's posting behavior), let's pretend the Bitcasino ANN thread wants everyone posting to stay strictly on-topic about gambling or its casino, and opted in to spam scrubbing and signals to delete any reply with even 10% spaminess score. Then when posts like the following are made:



All of these replies would be trashed. Though considering these are legendary/hero members, I don't know if your bot analyzes them as well.

---

I am almost 100% sure that Bitcointalk itself will not enforce any enhanced spam requirements, so perhaps a minimum spamminess score for any given thread could be set to 90%, in which case, all (recent, within the past 2 weeks) posts that fail to be even a little substantial are reported/deleted en-masse.

Certain exceptions would be made for boards and threads which are not supposed to be patrolled, such as Off-topic and Archival, and the Wall Observer thread.

This would also be another one of those use cases that use automation/algorithms, and not AI in particular.

Only the best spam buster out there. The information on it's profile basically says everything. It reports/removes/nukes (newbie) accounts if they post malware/spam/etc.

Who (what) is MindlessElectrion exactly?

From what I've seen over the years, getting rid of obvious spam makes some of the spammers switch to something that's much harder to detect.
When plagiarism got busted, they switched to a homograph attack. When that was made impossible (by theymos), they switched to word spinners. Now it's AI-spam. The main problem is: it becomes less and less obvious what's spam, and more time consuming to detect.

Because that won't affect their earnings, and hitting them in the wallet is the best way to get them to stop posting rubbish. (Which will make the forum better for everyone.)

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that people should be encouraged to tag each other over isolated cases of what they consider incorrect use. I'm saying that the possibility of receiving (justifiable) negative trust from a DT member would make a fine hedge against anyone seriously considering engaging (either alone, or as part of a group) in a pattern of repeated abuse.

But your idea was to be something standard on the forum or would it be a script that the person chose to use or not?

If it's a default system, it's almost like having all threads like they're auto-moderated. And honestly I don't think that's a good vision...

Why waste time clicking individual posts, if you can Ignore everything from that user with one click?
If you want to share responsibility of hiding posts, it may be better to bring back the glowing Ignore button. It was removed before I joined, and I guess it was abused, but it might work in combination with custom Trust lists.

It's more like 5000 posts per day, and not all of them are shitposts. But, instead of automatically hiding them, why not hook up with MindlessElectron to remove them

Maybe if it was made up of a few selected users rather than just anyone with "greater than x merit" which is easily abused, but then that raises the question "Why not just appoint said users as moderators"?

This would not be a good use of the trust system.

@NotATether: I'm starting to see your point about letting an AI classify shitposts. But, I don't frequent super spammy boards, so most of my issue is actually sig spam on good boards. The best way to combat sig spam is to have campaign managers stop paying for it. A system like what I'm proposing could achieve that without them having to change anything about how they run their campaigns, the posts would just automatically stop being paid for (because the managers would never see them). In my estimation, "AI" can often just be replaced with the phrase "black box", and I don't like the idea of affecting people's earnings with something that isn't accountable, makes decisions unilaterally, and frequently gets things wrong.

Yep, very much agree! But, surely you can appreciate how what I've described so far has the makings of a workable system?

Are you really so confident that no combination of parameters will end up working?

Don't you think some kind of trusted "post curator" list (or something similar) is worth exploring? (Please don't take the shortcut of immediately asking: "Okay, but who decides who's a curator and who isn't?".)

Or, what if the community could see a log (either combined or separated) of each user's activity with regard to this system, so everything was done out in the open, and negative trust could be used as a tool to combat abusers?

Because we can't rely on moderators deleting all low-quality posts.

We have ~20 staff versus 20 thousand shitposts per day.

Which is why such posts should be automatically classified and hidden from everyone who uses a particular userscript.

You've already picked up on my point here in your next post: Using numbers which are sufficiently high to make it resistant to abuse will also make it essentially useless.

I am also in general against any proposal which brings us closer to Reddit's "mob rule" upvote/downvote type system, where unpopular but factually accurate posts are often hidden from view.

Yeah, I'm with you. But, people are lazy and being able to just quickly click one button (instead of having to click once, lose focus, enter some text, and then click again) will appeal to many more people, I think. Also, having precisely defined rules (e.g. if 9 of your peers agree(d) with you, then the post will be effectively "nuked" without further ceremony) is more satisfying (to me anyway) than being at the mercy of a hit-and-miss moderation policy.

I had the same thought. I think it might work best if the post immediately (or maybe with a second, user-specified threshold) disappears from your own view, but only disappears from everyone else's when the global threshold has been reached. I could see myself clicking that button all the time.

Yep, or something similar, like a new "post curator" list.

That's true, but I'm not saying that this system won't be abused, I'm saying that it's possible to select the parameters in a way that would make that abuse impractical to execute. (Of course, there's a balancing act here: if you set the countermeasures too aggressively, then the feature won't work that well in practice, because too many people would have to click the button for the "threshold" to be crossed.)

When I said the post would be "hidden from view", I meant the user's post history, too. Although, I'm guessing some campaign managers might use tools that rely on post archives (like ninjastic.space), and that needs a slightly more complicated solution (maybe a new endpoint to get a list of "redundant" post IDs for a given user and time frame).

But the fact that they are neutral, does not have the human capacity to understand everything that is involved in any post. So you can sometimes unfairly rate something negatively that it isn't, or rate something positively when you shouldn't.

It is true that the bot can improve these details, but humans have infinite probabilities, so something can look like one thing to an AI and be something totally different, which only human discernment can do.

I'm not against AI being able to help our day to day, but I think that it generates content on the forum, it distorts the purpose of the forum.


Another detail:
Here we are discussing a "good" bot that was intended to automatically answer repeated questions.
But, what would stop the emergence of "evil" bots that will create content simulating that it is human?

We have to be careful not to set precedents that then make everything more difficult to control.

If it's redundant, why not report it to be deleted?

If it takes 10 or more "hits" to hide a post, I'm not going to waste my time tagging them. It would be much better if it's linked to the Trust list, so based on the user's who's judgement you trust already.
Barely any user has more than 10 negative tags, it's very unlikely a single post will reach that much. Plus, it means at least 10 people have to actually read a redundant post, which is a massive waste of time.

In my experience, human interaction is replaced by a cheaper system. Some companies now have a computerized phone menu when you call them, and many of the options lead to a dead end where you don't get to talk to a human. It's cheaper, but not helpful.

I think I've been known to not hold my tongue if I want to insult someone in the forum, so your perception does not coincide with my intention.


I deny the premise, human interaction was not replaced by electronic communication. Or do you live in a cave and only interact with others by typing on your computer? Some human interaction was replaced by electronic communication in the areas where it was most productive and useful.

Now this is exactly the kind of thing you could use an AI for. They're neutral, don't get into trust disputes with anyone and never apply to join signature campaigns because they don't know what the hell that is.

Like I said, I'm starting to see AI as something that should be more augmented next to the post buttons than as replies themselves. The only problem is, now we are looking at full-blown infrastructure required to host such a bot (a userscript, and a server to go along with it, for something that basically is operated on a free basis).