4 ms·

"can we stop judging the quality of their algorithms (which they're probably not interested in) and instead critique the artistic value of emulating human onlin

by sequoia 14y ago

"can we stop judging the quality of their algorithms (which they're probably not interested in) and instead critique the artistic value of emulating human online behavior?" I actually addressed this first, before the software output. They are being jerks and not demonstrating anything interesting. Please tell me: what is the artistic value? 'Thru this work we now know it's possible to piss people off by putting their name and picture on a spambot.' Is this it? Don't get me wrong, I think creative, high quality trolling can be considered art in its highest form (see Andy Kauffman, Sacha Baron Cohen, 4chan at its best, etc.) but simply slapping someone's name on a spambot is uninteresting, unoriginal, childish, and above all, uncreative. It provokes no thoughts beyond "wow, these guys sure are jerks." For what it's worth the creators mention "the algorithm" constantly in their interview and seem to ascribe it some value, so I think it's a fair subject of discussion & critique.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
stfu 14y ago
I think creative, high quality trolling can be considered art in its highest form (see Andy Kauffman, Sacha Baron Cohen, 4chan at its best, etc.) but simply slapping someone's name on a spambot is uninteresting, unoriginal, childish, and above all, uncreative I disagree with that idea. In my view the level of trolling is defined not by the troll, but by those being trolled. Obviously the guy in the video is taking their relatively unsophisticated level of trolling as a serious matter. Just by doing so their trolling is in my view justifiable, as it achieves its objective. Also I personally find the way they were approaching this interview quite amusing, i.e. they are shifting in a concern-trolling mode, almost taking a therapeutic stand. This lets the interviewer argue to a certain degree against a wall as they try to imply some deeper motivations by the interviewer, and find the "hidden" intentions for why he becomes so concerned about a bot spouting random information - that apparently still enough other people take serious enough to communicate with.
evanlivingston 14y ago
I'm still a little caught up in the "identity theft" thing. Names and appearances are not the limits of one's identity. If this were the case, halloween would be the criminal's holiday. The trio, perhaps inadvertently, point out a fundamental flaw with both twitter and how the user approaches it. If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dreaming of %x and %y", x, y) then is there really an identity to steal? This man is fighting for his unique right to present 140 characters, a string of characters (his name) next to 5329 pixels captured at one specific moment in his life, all grouped together? By what virtue does he own those rights?
- novalis 14y ago
  Don't get caught up to the point you write about it with a damage control approach. "If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dreaming of %x and %y", x, y) then is there really an identity to steal?" Is this turning to some introduction to awkward online eugenics or what... You don't know that impersonation isn't something a creative commons license on a photo from wikipedia was made for ? Do they have the right to create a substitutive persona to establish contacts with others ? Was there a change to the law and no one sent the memo or something... Differentiation is intrinsic to identity, you don't have to display it like a onus. What are you on about ? So a bot with your name on it, that would tweet "comments" on the weather and caviar, would render you non existant, voiding of the hability to contest impersonation ? That just has that touch of the same non sensical dribble that funnyjunk lawyer has, where are you going with that. Natural rights cease because someone made a bot ? Whisky Tango Foxtrot. Hold the internet presses people. "By what virtue does he own those rights?" Maybe because when he signed up for the service he had those rights then and didn't give them away. Yeah, probably because of that. People accept terms of service when signing up to online services by their own predisposition and free will. They enter a contract, see where this is going. Bots that impersonate people that accept terms of service don't have precedence just because some pseudo experimental trio thought it would be a good project. They don't own his rights. That is the framing that causes the problem and why they are at fault when trying to turn the discussion to some indefensible position. They failed miserably at it. That halloween criminal's holiday day... honestly, if you had to go make an account just to sprinkle this conversation with that piece of golden web dust/insight, you should have saved yourself the trouble. Honestly there are other places for that sort of thing. In the end it is really funny how people botching a project make this sort of thing pop up. Had a laught, but like a little britain comedy series used to state: "Computer says no."
novalis 14y ago
They keep reframing it to cover the vacuum, going to the point of sugesting the photo license from the wiki page entitles them to do what they want and that the portrayed person doesn't understand it, this borders lunacy if it wasn't so obvious how poorly prepared they are. Like the software one day appeared out of nothing, had they been able. No pseudo eclectic goal post moving will explain this mess in the end and the consumation of all this adds up to a waste of time. Hope they pull the most important lessons out of this and reframe their efforts to fields they are able to work in.

by sequoia 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

stfu 14y ago

I think creative, high quality trolling can be considered art in its highest form (see Andy Kauffman, Sacha Baron Cohen, 4chan at its best, etc.) but simply slapping someone's name on a spambot is uninteresting, unoriginal, childish, and above all, uncreative I disagree with that idea. In my view the level of trolling is defined not by the troll, but by those being trolled. Obviously the guy in the video is taking their relatively unsophisticated level of trolling as a serious matter. Just by doing so their trolling is in my view justifiable, as it achieves its objective. Also I personally find the way they were approaching this interview quite amusing, i.e. they are shifting in a concern-trolling mode, almost taking a therapeutic stand. This lets the interviewer argue to a certain degree against a wall as they try to imply some deeper motivations by the interviewer, and find the "hidden" intentions for why he becomes so concerned about a bot spouting random information - that apparently still enough other people take serious enough to communicate with.

evanlivingston 14y ago

I'm still a little caught up in the "identity theft" thing. Names and appearances are not the limits of one's identity. If this were the case, halloween would be the criminal's holiday. The trio, perhaps inadvertently, point out a fundamental flaw with both twitter and how the user approaches it. If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dreaming of %x and %y", x, y) then is there really an identity to steal? This man is fighting for his unique right to present 140 characters, a string of characters (his name) next to 5329 pixels captured at one specific moment in his life, all grouped together? By what virtue does he own those rights?

novalis 14y ago
Don't get caught up to the point you write about it with a damage control approach. "If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dreaming of %x and %y", x, y) then is there really an identity to steal?" Is this turning to some introduction to awkward online eugenics or what... You don't know that impersonation isn't something a creative commons license on a photo from wikipedia was made for ? Do they have the right to create a substitutive persona to establish contacts with others ? Was there a change to the law and no one sent the memo or something... Differentiation is intrinsic to identity, you don't have to display it like a onus. What are you on about ? So a bot with your name on it, that would tweet "comments" on the weather and caviar, would render you non existant, voiding of the hability to contest impersonation ? That just has that touch of the same non sensical dribble that funnyjunk lawyer has, where are you going with that. Natural rights cease because someone made a bot ? Whisky Tango Foxtrot. Hold the internet presses people. "By what virtue does he own those rights?" Maybe because when he signed up for the service he had those rights then and didn't give them away. Yeah, probably because of that. People accept terms of service when signing up to online services by their own predisposition and free will. They enter a contract, see where this is going. Bots that impersonate people that accept terms of service don't have precedence just because some pseudo experimental trio thought it would be a good project. They don't own his rights. That is the framing that causes the problem and why they are at fault when trying to turn the discussion to some indefensible position. They failed miserably at it. That halloween criminal's holiday day... honestly, if you had to go make an account just to sprinkle this conversation with that piece of golden web dust/insight, you should have saved yourself the trouble. Honestly there are other places for that sort of thing. In the end it is really funny how people botching a project make this sort of thing pop up. Had a laught, but like a little britain comedy series used to state: "Computer says no."

novalis 14y ago

They keep reframing it to cover the vacuum, going to the point of sugesting the photo license from the wiki page entitles them to do what they want and that the portrayed person doesn't understand it, this borders lunacy if it wasn't so obvious how poorly prepared they are. Like the software one day appeared out of nothing, had they been able. No pseudo eclectic goal post moving will explain this mess in the end and the consumation of all this adds up to a waste of time. Hope they pull the most important lessons out of this and reframe their efforts to fields they are able to work in.