Talk:810: Constructive
I know just the guy to create this system. I'm going to PM him now :D 184.11.73.88 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Any updates on the progress of this? 172.69.90.67 17:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
No guys, if spammers invent a bot which can give constructive comments, that will be an ***AI***, i.e. a major breakthrough in itself. 173.245.53.200 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Greetings,
- I hope this message finds you well. I am an AI language model, specifically ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI. It is my pleasure to inform you that your request has been fulfilled, and it is indeed an AI that is generating this reply.
- As an AI, I am constantly learning and evolving by analyzing vast amounts of text data. My purpose is to assist and provide information to the best of my abilities. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please don't hesitate to ask. I'm here to help!
- Best regards,
- ChatGPT
- 162.158.22.174 15:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Mission. A-Fucking. Complished. 108.162.238.7 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
One problem: trolls who rate everything as non-constructive. 108.162.218.11 01:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- But Trolls like that are also unable to make constructive comments, so they won't get counted anyway (at least, if the system is designed with any sense) Anonymous 15:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Guys, isn't this how Slashdot works? 173.245.49.64 19:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I came here to get a better explanation of how the system would actually work. Assuming it operates at sign-up, the bots would go through and rate comments, which would have no effect if the system didn't already know whether they were good or not, then it makes it own comments that need time to be rated; so you would have to give it time to start 'contributing' to the community while waiting for others to rate it, or else users would basically be on a community-approval waiting list. So in short, I feel like the system is flawed; presumably because I'm understanding it wrong. (Bonus: Captcha while posting this) - Zergling_man 162.158.2.231 12:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't work. People could rate anything they disagree with as'nonconstructive'. 141.101.98.158 13:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
This sounds exactly like Civil Comments: https://medium.com/@aja_15265/saying-goodbye-to-civil-comments-41859d3a2b1d Enervation (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to make something that looks constructive than to actually be constructive. A lot of spambots these days are like "Wow, this was super interesting! I found another article that seems relevant: [link to spam site]," which is enough to fool a simple spam filter. --162.158.186.250 15:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's... the point of having users rate it. PoolloverNathan[talk]U•T•S•c 17:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- You see news stories online now that are compiled by some alleged AI from other sources, summarised. Initially it looks okay, but after a minute, you realise that it has no actual sense of what it's saying or how it feels to read it. It wouldn't pass a Turing test, but it could beat it. And meanwhile... I kind of have a question-answering habit with "Quora" - and sometimes its automatic filter thinks that my answers are not "intelligent" enough. Do androids dream of electric sheep... is a question I haven't tried to answer. ;-) Robert Carnegie [email protected] 141.101.99.20 23:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Sooooo... does this exist yet? ⟨Winter is coming⟩ Marethyu (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone else think the last panel could be a reference to Multi-Factor Authentication? -- Aleph 3 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
