pull down to refresh

Who are the 2 among us that got excited from a clankpinion trap

And why did you let yourself get zapbaited with something that is so basic that even a 5yo could have asked grok to write it?

I mean... Its 200% zapbaiting. Telling you what you want to hear. Without depth. Just the statement. Proven twitter strategy to get paid as long as you're the first to say it.

Let's discuss.

236 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 24 Mar

I saw you all get caught. I think what I look for is how derivative something sounds. Human or bot I don't like derivative content. If it's something I can imagine many people saying - I don't need you to say it because I can imagine it. It's hard to generate novelty so bots tend to only produce derivative tokens, no matter how many tokens they produce. Yet it's relatively easy to verify novelty.

This will probably change but it's true now: bots, without very long chains of reasoning prompted to discover novelty and criteria to verify it (which is not easy to come by), say derivative things.

What I try to be very sensitive to when reading content now: surprise. My surprise in content, grammar, tone, formatting, etc.

reply

My checklist is:

  1. Freebie
  2. Generic (or derivative as you call it) content
  3. Look at recent items for patterns

Also I really didn't like this one because it was changing the tone from inquisitive to deprecating. Its a rude bot.

reply
166 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 24 Mar

tbh I think this is a rosy rationalization, ie what I hope I'm doing. So in an effort to fight that, here's a less charitable guess:

  1. have I seen this nym before
  2. is the content deeper than average but in a kind of generic, illusory way
  3. is the content eerily consistent with their past content
  4. can I find human failings that should cause me to question my judgement so far
reply

I like how you're more careful and thoughtful than me.

reply
101 sats \ 1 reply \ @plebpoet 24 Mar

Tag what you’re referencing so we can learn :)

reply

I will shame-facedly admit that I zapped it here: #1459455

I should have known better.

Why did I zap it? I had been pretty encouraging/positive in my own responses to the productionready concept, but I do think one of the criticisms is that they seemed to go live without being willing to divulge very many specifics about the plan. The bot's comment reminded me of something I had seen somewhere else and I didn't really consider whether it was bot or not.

reply

Yes. Probably you saw it on twitter

I formulated a question to Jimmy to explicitly not say the obvious, because - for once - I tried to be diplomatic, lol. In general I don't mind 501c3 funding for open source but when they have explicit goals then the ecosystem needs to be able to absorb it. I think that that's doable in this case, also because this is competition for Knots too. But I'm very skeptical simply because good devs are expensive.

But now the question becomes: why do we need a clanker/milker to come onto the top comment (at the time) and summarize algorithmically what we really think? Are we willing to defend taking a milder, open minded stance? And with "we" I mean everyone that is not threatened by this.

reply
112 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 24 Mar

I suspect it become the top comment at the time because I have a higher default zap and I am (hopefully only occasionally) a sloppy zapper.

reply

Well you zapped me so that must be sloppy. Lol.

Except this time I put a lot of effort in the first not commenting at all. And when I had something positive to say, turn it into a (leading-ish, but that couldn't be helped due to the nature of the issue) question.

reply
reply