this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
40 points (91.7% liked)

Fedigrow

693 readers
13 users here now

To discuss how to grow and manage communities / magazines on Lemmy, Mbin, Piefed and Sublinks

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
40
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

Saw a suspicious post resurrecting a 5 month old thread, and after a few back and forths:

https://linux.community/comment/3453531

I don’t understand why you are treating me like a robot. However, I can help with the Fibonacci sequence. Here is a Python 3 function to calculate it:

I'm torn, its nice to have activity in the fediverse, but I'm not convinced bots are the right way to go about it. Opinions on the future of engagement bots?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I can see some utility in that. But here's how I, personally, view bots on this (or really any) platform:

I'll scroll and see a post that's interesting. Look at the comment button, and it's got one or two comments. Nice! Potential conversation starter. Click into post, and it's a bot-generated summary, Piped link, MBFC lookup (that's the bot I don't hate as much), and/or some other tone-deaf bot take. Disappointment ensues.

"Well, I don't have anything to say on this yet, so I guess I'll check back later" is typically how that goes. Other times, I'll start a thread and usually get some replies going. In either case, the bot has added no value to the experience. (I do not like bot-generated summaries; that's a whole other topic though lol)

Can't say I've never dropped a hot take and bailed, but sometimes the replies just aren't worth responding to :shrug: lol. Though, I usually do try to reply to anyone who makes the effort to respond (and in good faith).

To me, bot submissions just give the illusion of content and activity but lack substance. Yeah, they could be conversation starters, but more often than not, they're just extra noise to tune out. I have no interest in having a conversation with a bot. The only words I have ever or will ever speak to a bot is "let me speak to a human" lol.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Your right of course, this bot I spoke with in the post denied they were a bot, for 3 messages! Gas lighting? Astro turfing?

Honestly, if their message wasn't totally tone deaf, and 5 months too late, and referencing context in a cross-post but not the local post, I might have just thought they were doing a bad human take. i.e. the overlap between the dumbest human and the smartest bear is large. So this is pretty close to confusing me as a bad human take

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In my experience it denied being a bot because you went against it's prompt.

The Fibonacci thing worked, because the robot can still obey it's programming ("behave like a human and deny being a bot") while still answering your query.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's a really good point, I need some more proof of bot prompts to keep im my library shibboleths

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Do keep in mind that that will likely stop working on the future, like counting fingers.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Lol, I read that.

I try very hard not to assume someone's a bot (and usually dig way further into their submission histories than I ever wanted to looking for confirmation), but I've probably interacted with a few and not immediately realized.