I would prefer if it bots identified themselves as bots and humans identified themselves as humans.
Once that occurs, then humans can make an informed decision as to what needs to be done.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I would prefer if it bots identified themselves as bots and humans identified themselves as humans.
Once that occurs, then humans can make an informed decision as to what needs to be done.
Can you think of a reason they might want to do that? I can think of plenty of reasons they wouldn't want that.
We don't need the permission of bots to decide what to do. People running bots can contribute valuably to the discussion, but their bots are incapable of it.
Bots can contribute to a discussion.
Bots are capable of identifying plagiarism.
I would say that adds value.
Bots are capable of almost anything a programmer desires.
I'd bet a bot could be programmed to identify bots, which could be quite useful!
While I completely agree that bots can be very useful, and perhaps are the penultimate expression of utility, which tool technology, from chipped rocks, to fire, to, now robots, has continually improved in utility, they aren't people.
They are just tools. While there may come a day when bots are more than mere tools, today, thank God, is not yet that day, and even such contributions they make to conversations are of but limited entertainment value.
All of the beneficial uses of bots exclude being accorded the rights and value of people. I can think of dozens, and more, uses of bots on Steemit I fully support. Not curating content, not voting, and not pretending to be people.
How many bots are there?
How many bots are "abusive"?
How many bots are " useful"?
Until this is known, we won't even know what we're dealing with.
Can they be identified and classified?
I believe a good start is to provide a way for humans to identify"bottish" actions of an account, then let humans decide what to do about them.
I don't advocate giving bots right (and I never have), but I do believe humans have the right to run bots.
When and if it is decided that the operations of an account are abusive, then the account can be hammered to oblivion.
I fully agree that people have a right to use tools - particularly tools they make their very own self, as many bot owners do.
I cannot agree I need to know how many bots there are - I don't care. As to whether they are good or bad, well that is determined by how they are used.
I submit that bots voting is bad. I'm 'agin it. I submit on philosophical and political grounds that potentiating bots to vote degrades human agency, and will lead down a slippery slope to places no rational person want to end up.
I personally feel that bots writing posts and comments is bad, but I'm not necessarily certain it's intolerable. Just as having a drone go to the store and pick up my groceries is a beneficial use of a bot, I might be persuaded that having a bot speak my mind for me could be a good thing. I'm far less convinced letting bots be programmed to promote or suppress viewpoints is safe. There's room for discussion there, and I'd like to have it before bots can write well.
As long as bots are tools people use, I think they're fine. When they become stand-ins for people, as in writing posts, or equal to people, as in voting, I reckon they're abusive.
We don't need to enumerate them. We can prevent them from interacting with the blockchain to vote, and post, and we should.
You seem to think we shouldn't. Why shouldn't we?
"We can prevent them from interacting with the blockchain to vote, and post, and we should."
There's the rub...
The genie is already out of the bottle. Bots are already voting, posting and curating.
How do you propose we stop account holders from running bots that interact with the blockchain?
Edit: whoops! I assumed you were @bot-or-not. I apologize. Please disregard the parts of my reply intended for them personally. The answer to your question is below.
I have to ask you to answer my question. I ask you to answer it substantively, and forthrightly, because I am not trying to trick, or mislead, or promoting an agenda.
I don't care about my rewards, and I've never spent a satoshi of Steem, nor have any plans to.
I spent more than 12 hours on @blocktrades post on making curation more profitable, and saw a comment that @leotrap made to @timcliff, proposing that an 'authenticator' be placed on a post that prevented bots from voting on it.
Basically, a captcha, or 2FA, reveals a public key which allows one to vote on the post. Without the key, the blockchain does not allow the vote.
@netuoso, according to @timcliff, says that captchas can be solved. I have no doubt this is true. I also note that they are in wide use across the internet, and greatly reduce the amount of spam, scams, and bots.
It isn't perfect, but it will pretty much end the overwhelming of human curation by bots.
Now, I have forthrightly answered your question. Please tell me the honest truth why you don't want that to happen.
Thanks!