3 ms·
They use AI to take away all human recourse with the company but want to tell others not to use it? I can't wait to see how they will manage false positives.
by narag 5y ago
They use AI to take away all human recourse with the company but want to tell others not to use it?
I can't wait to see how they will manage false positives.
Now not only you can't contact a human, you can't prove you're one.
- ummwhat 5y agoI'm ok with filtering humans who fail the Turing test.
- BlueTemplar 5y agoThe issue here is that the Turing test is getting ever harder - aren't you afraid of the time when you are going to start regularly failing it yourself ?
- nonstickcoating 5y agoFurthemore: Did you think about what this means for people with e.g. serious cognitive disability? Your statement argues for prohibiting them from participating in public discourse wholesale.
- ummwhat 5y agoIn the maximal case where bots are indistinguishable from humans, by definition the odds of failing the Turing test are 50/50. A coin flip per comment. Yeah, I can put up with that. Realistically, I don't think I will ever start regularly failing it. Go ahead, call it arrogance or hubris or whatever. I've looked at the originality and predictability metrics on a large corpus of my online comments. Let's just say, you won't be replacing me with gpt-3 or similar.
- BlueTemplar 5y agoThis is diverging from the strict definition of "Turing Test", but I've had the bad luck of having my YouTube comments silently deleted (or worse, shadowbanned), and it's so infuriating (because it seemingly punishes some of 3 ways in which I've tried to make my comments better), that I mostly stopped posting them. Not to mention that in cases where it results in a direct ban, you better hope that odds are better than 50/50 ! (New users are particularly susceptible.)