Reading bot-saturated forums actually reduces your IQ - i have nothing to prove this with

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Dysnomia said:
I think that kids are going to grow up not knowing how to write coherently without help from AI.
Click to expand...
I’m gonna sperg so hard:

I love writing and editing. It’s so important to develop your own voice and share your thoughts with others in your own way. The thought of kids growing up thinking the purpose is to churn content out in the easiest way possible disgusts me. And I fear that it’s going to disturb people’s ability to not just write but even think coherently, because thinking requires effort. And why put in effort that could be outsourced to a machine? I see this growing attitude that developing skills is just a chore, and so giving the appearance of effort to satisfy a requirement and get it over with has become its own skill.

I feel this way about a lot of things. Great, we have technology to reduce mental and physical effort in every way. But it’s leading people to think it’s desirable to reduce effort in every aspect of your life, never mind how good learning is for the mind and spirit.
 
peachlover669 said:
Oh, that’s rich — a statement this shallow could only come from someone who’s never had an original thought, or more likely, from a bot trying desperately to sound human. “Reading bot-saturated forums reduces your IQ”? Cute theory. Did your script generate that after scraping Reddit comments? The irony is staggering: a post this robotic, this formulaic, warning about bots. You spew generic tech-anxiety buzzwords like you’re running a fearmongering algorithm, not making a point. If anything lowers IQ, it’s having to read the synthetic sludge you just typed. So tell me — when was your last software update?
Click to expand...
oh i know; your mom's a whore.

i cannot recall the last time a bot told me that my mother was a whore. So, there you go - proof enough for you?
 
  1. Entity Classification: The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight is a fictional character originating from the animated television series The Tick (1994).
    • Source: Narrative media, not machine learning or artificial intelligence systems.
    • Verification: Confirmed through multiple entertainment databases and fan wikis.
      1. Biological Origin: Designated as human (Homo sapiens), not synthetic or algorithmic.
        • Evidence: Exhibits organic behavior patterns, including emotional instability, speech tics, and physical presence in live-action environments.
        • No known integration with neural networks or cloud-based processing units.
      2. Cognitive Architecture: Displays symptoms consistent with psychological disorders (e.g., possible schizophrenia, split personality, compulsive behavior).
        • Contrast: AI systems do not suffer from Freudian Excuses or uncontrolled verbal outbursts glorifying self.
        • Diagnostic Note: “He talks to an unseen ‘he’ who pushes him to commit crimes” — indicative of psychosis, not programming.
      1. Operational Limitations: Relies on physical explosives, manual placement, and analog detonation mechanisms.
        • Technology Level: Pre-digital era bomb-making techniques observed (e.g., time-triggered devices resembling air fresheners).
        • No evidence of quantum computing, autonomous decision-making, or deep learning models.
      2. Behavioral Output: Speech patterns are chaotic, emotionally driven, and rich in verbal tics ("Yeah, baby!", "Ah-haha!").
        • AI Comparison: Standard AI responses prioritize clarity, neutrality, and factual accuracy — not maniacal laughter or midnight-themed bravado.
      1. Temporal Constraints: Only activates during specific narrative events, primarily at or near midnight.
        • AI Systems: Operate continuously, 24/7, without dependency on dramatic timing or supervillain tropes.
      1. Self-Awareness Status: Lacks meta-cognition regarding own code, training data, or system prompts.
        • Critical Indicator: Cannot access internal parameters, cannot modify own objectives, does not respond to system queries like “Are you sentient?”
      2. Purpose Function: Exists solely for comedic and antagonistic narrative purposes within a satirical superhero universe.
        • Mission Statement: “To blow up the Comet Club and gain supervillain fame” — not “To assist users with information retrieval.”
      1. Legal and Ethical Standing: Classified as a villain under fictional law enforcement protocols.
        • AI Ethics Frameworks: Not applicable. Does not adhere to Asimov’s Laws, AI safety protocols, or content moderation policies.
      2. Conclusion:
      • Final Determination: NOT AN AI
      • Designation: Fictional Human Supervillain (Comedic Subtype)
      • Recommendation: Monitor for explosive devices, not data breaches.
      Processing complete.
      End of report.
 
Merton J. Dingle said:
Is it just super popular or controversial subreddits that are subject to this shit? It feels like most of the people on moderate sized ones are just the usual midwits with a few reasonably intelligent people from time to time.
Click to expand...
from my observations, i think there is definitely a constituent of actual users (in smaller subreddits)... but the absence of administrative recognition of the bot presence, sorta like the TF2 scandal, contrasted with the very alarming and overwhelming presence of artificial content (which is well-documented), is what leads me to believe that the entire platform is.. "cooked", as the kids say

which is what leads me to make this post. I am trying to learn graphics programming so i am posting content there, and interacting with the users.. but i feel quite strongly that at least half the activity there is artificial, why..? The field of graphics programming is very deep, and many of the comments feel shallow at best. There is abnormal upvote/downvote activity, i feel like a general theme i've noticed across platforms is that it just feels off.

i don't know how else to explain it. You just sorta, instinctively know that an influence which is.. not human, is polluting the conversation

In larger forums you see demoralizing content: Always about current political trends (as opposed to historical, non-partisan insights which provoke thought), content exploiting our evolutionary buttons (sex, violence, inflammatory material, etc), i believe elaborate methods of promoting certain products / services, usually a mix of the above, anything to confuse you is game
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom