The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[malkie]

Us other kids can choose not to engage with the one causing the problem.

[I Have Questions]

Us other kids can choose not to engage with the one causing the problem.

That’s true. But someone always engages with him and it always results in a thread being destroyed by his A.I. nonsense or spam links. It’s just what happens.

Everyone else having to adjust their behaviour to compensate for the one person causing the issue not being managed, seems a lot like blaming the victims to me. But it’s clear to me that that is how it has to be. I wish you good luck with that endeavour.

[malkie]

Us other kids can choose not to engage with the one causing the problem.

That’s true. But someone always engages with him and it always results in a thread being destroyed by his A.I. nonsense or spam links. It’s just what happens.

Everyone else having to adjust their behaviour to compensate for the one person causing the issue not being managed, seems a lot like blaming the victims to me. But it’s clear to me that that is how it has to be. I wish you good luck with that endeavour.

I rarely engage directly with MG in any case.

While I realise that it's basically unfair, and not a real solution, as you point out, at least it's a fix of some sort that is in the hands of each board member.

[MG 2.0]

That’s true. But someone always engages with him and it always results in a thread being destroyed by his A.I. nonsense or spam links. It’s just what happens.

Everyone else having to adjust their behaviour to compensate for the one person causing the issue not being managed, seems a lot like blaming the victims to me. But it’s clear to me that that is how it has to be. I wish you good luck with that endeavour.

I rarely engage directly with MG in any case.

While I realise that it's basically unfair, and not a real solution, as you point out, at least it's a fix of some sort that is in the hands of each board member.

It's interesting reading recent conversations pointed at me. If one thing doesn't aggravate someone, then something else will...across the board. Yes, a solution would be to ignore what I say and simply let me say my piece and move on. That almost NEVER happens. I have some inklings as to why.

The flip side of all this is that if I were to ignore posters that for one reason or another aggravate me to no end , I would have very few people that I would/could talk to. So, I join in even though I know I'm talking with someone that I know is going to end up getting under my skin.

I'm more interested, however, in the content of what is being discussed, so I will join in on a conversation even when I know that certain posters are going to come into the conversation and cause a ruckus...seemingly JUST because I am there and I am posting something that disrupts the preferred narrative that critics would have carry the day. Almost any means is then used in order to create havoc with the intent to steer the conversation back to the desired course and/or conclusions.

The preferred narrative MUST remain intact. There is too much riding on it.

The thing is, I think things are much more interesting when the non-preferred narrative is brought in. That's why I make my voice heard even though I KNOW, without question, there is going to be kickback in one form/way or another. At this point, I've seen it all.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Us other kids can choose not to engage with the one causing the problem.

That’s true. But someone always engages with him and it always results in a thread being destroyed by his A.I. nonsense or spam links. It’s just what happens.

Everyone else having to adjust their behaviour to compensate for the one person causing the issue not being managed, seems a lot like blaming the victims to me. But it’s clear to me that that is how it has to be. I wish you good luck with that endeavour.

Both you and malkie make excellent points. The customary advice is 'don't feed the trolls,' but the problem in this specific case is that even if no one responds, this particular character just responds to himself, derailing, cluttering up threads with A.I., posting stereotypical and mean-spirited assessments of anyone different than him, etc.

I haven't responded directly to an mg post in three and a half months, yet he has still managed to make sexist comments about me in the last week, as well as multiple other personal attacks in that time span. He's also derailed many threads I've wanted to comment on. Clearly, simply not directly responding to him isn't stopping the disruptions and derailings, but it does feel better on my end to not directly respond to him, trusting there's no need because others see his baseless stereotyping and attacks for what they are (thanks to malkie for suggesting that method of interpreting posts).

More specifically, it seems clear that mg knows the A.I. rule, and he is just finding different ways to break it in order to get attention. Negative attention, yes, but for some sociopathic reason, that works for him. Virtually every thread mg is currently participating in, regardless of the topic, has ended up with repeated A.I. violations and almost identical derailments of negative and stereotypical assessments of people he thinks believe differently than him. This comment from a research paper gives a very insightful explanation for that kind of repetitive behavior:

...[P]ay close attention to how often the same user makes questionable remarks on controversial topics; this could indicate a troll engaging in “trolling-by-volume” tactics—frequently posting provocative messages designed to draw out negative reactions from other participants in order to disrupt conversation flow.
https://www.truzzer.com/the-psychology- ... -comments/

"Trolling-by-volume"!!! Who knew efficiency considerations could be applied to forum disruption as well?!!

[MG 2.0]

That’s true. But someone always engages with him and it always results in a thread being destroyed by his A.I. nonsense or spam links. It’s just what happens.

Everyone else having to adjust their behaviour to compensate for the one person causing the issue not being managed, seems a lot like blaming the victims to me. But it’s clear to me that that is how it has to be. I wish you good luck with that endeavour.

Both you and malkie make excellent points. The customary advice is 'don't feed the trolls,' but the problem in this specific case is that even if no one responds, this particular character just responds to himself, derailing, cluttering up threads with A.I., posting stereotypical and mean-spirited assessments of anyone different than him, etc.

I haven't responded directly to an mg post in three and a half months, yet he has still managed to make sexist comments about me in the last week, as well as multiple other personal attacks in that time span. He's also derailed many threads I've wanted to comment on. Clearly, simply not directly responding to him isn't stopping the disruptions and derailings, but it does feel better on my end to not directly respond to him, trusting there's no need because others see his baseless stereotyping and attacks for what they are (thanks to malkie for suggesting that method of interpreting posts).

More specifically, it seems clear that mg knows the A.I. rule, and he is just finding different ways to break it in order to get attention. Negative attention, yes, but for some sociopathic reason, that works for him. Virtually every thread mg is currently participating in, regardless of the topic, has ended up with repeated A.I. violations and almost identical derailments of negative and stereotypical assessments of people he thinks believe differently than him. This comment from a research paper gives a very insightful explanation for that kind of repetitive behavior:

...[P]ay close attention to how often the same user makes questionable remarks on controversial topics; this could indicate a troll engaging in “trolling-by-volume” tactics—frequently posting provocative messages designed to draw out negative reactions from other participants in order to disrupt conversation flow.

"Trolling-by-volume"!!! Who knew efficiency considerations could be applied to forum disruption as well?!!

My suggestion to you, Marcus, is to put me on ignore. It's that simple. I probably won't put you on ignore (even though at times you are quite frustrating for reasons that I've homed in on many times), because I am interested in topics and narratives and where they are going in any given thread.

I would not in any way be offended if you decided to simply ignore everything about me on this board, worlds without end.

I don't expect that you will, but you might surprise me!

By the way, I've said it before, but I'll say it again, most of the stuff you say about me and throw my way is B.S.

And talk about trolling...sheesh.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Continually expecting MG to do the right thing and manage himself, after so many examples of where he has promised to do so and then immediately shown he has no intention of doing so, is a fool’s errand.

I think we're all having to learn and adjust to this new age of A.I.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

There’s an inherent problem with the A.I. Rule that Shades has put in place to prevent MG 2.0 spamming threads with A.I. generated content that he portrays, dishonestly, as if it’s his own words. It’s that Shades has allowed for A.I. generated content”factual” content to be used - the example Shades gave was of a scripture.

Let me give a different example to show the problem/loop hole. Let’s say there’s a thread discussing the chances of the teams that remain in the Club World Cup soccer tournament. A poster asks A.I. to provide an answer to a prompt about the odds of each team finishing in the top four, which he then posts to the thread as if it’s his own words and portrays it as the odds of each team finishing first. Because he’s posted the response as “factual content” it doesn’t breach the board rule. But other posters cannot easily verify the information, cannot verify the source of the information, and cannot differentiate between what the poster has said, and what A.I. has said.

If that same poster were to do the same exercise using Google, copying and pasting the same information, but this time putting the pasted section into a quote box, and providing a link to the source, it becomes easily verifiable that the poster is engaged in sleight of hand.

The board rule suits MG because he’s lazy, and he doesn’t want his information, the source of that information, and the context of that information, easily checked.

Continually expecting MG to do the right thing and manage himself, after so many examples of where he has promised to do so and then immediately shown he has no intention of doing so, is a fool’s errand.

Everyone else very quickly adapted to and began to follow the A.I. rule, except for mg. It's just not possible he really didn't understand, after several explanations from Shades, that 'A.I. generated content' included 'A.I. generated content in list form,' or that 'A.I. generated content' included 'A.I. generated content that you pretend you wrote'.

The only explanation left is that he violated a very simple rule, on purpose and repeatedly, across multiple threads, with the express intent of disrupting the board.

[malkie]

There’s an inherent problem with the A.I. Rule that Shades has put in place to prevent MG 2.0 spamming threads with A.I. generated content that he portrays, dishonestly, as if it’s his own words. It’s that Shades has allowed for A.I. generated content”factual” content to be used - the example Shades gave was of a scripture.

Let me give a different example to show the problem/loop hole. Let’s say there’s a thread discussing the chances of the teams that remain in the Club World Cup soccer tournament. A poster asks A.I. to provide an answer to a prompt about the odds of each team finishing in the top four, which he then posts to the thread as if it’s his own words and portrays it as the odds of each team finishing first. Because he’s posted the response as “factual content” it doesn’t breach the board rule. But other posters cannot easily verify the information, cannot verify the source of the information, and cannot differentiate between what the poster has said, and what A.I. has said.

If that same poster were to do the same exercise using Google, copying and pasting the same information, but this time putting the pasted section into a quote box, and providing a link to the source, it becomes easily verifiable that the poster is engaged in sleight of hand.

The board rule suits MG because he’s lazy, and he doesn’t want his information, the source of that information, and the context of that information, easily checked.

Continually expecting MG to do the right thing and manage himself, after so many examples of where he has promised to do so and then immediately shown he has no intention of doing so, is a fool’s errand.

Everyone else very quickly adapted to and began to follow the A.I. rule, except for mg. It's just not possible he really didn't understand, after several explanations from Shades, that 'A.I. generated content' included 'A.I. generated content in list form,' or that 'A.I. generated content' included 'A.I. generated content that you pretend you wrote'.

The only explanation left is that he violated a very simple rule, on purpose and repeatedly, across multiple threads, with the express intent of disrupting the board.

If I seriously thought that MG was unable to "learn and adjust to this new age of A.I." to this extent, I would ask board members to cut him some slack. But in my opinion he's clearly of above average intelligence, and not suffering from cognitive issues. Even without assuming intent, I'm at a loss to see his behaviour as anything other than deliberate.

Also in my opinion, an appeal to "this new age of A.I." seems a bit pathetic.

ETA, from my favourite poet:

It's not very pretty in pitiful fashion to angle for pity: it merits compassion.

[Dr. Shades]

There’s an inherent problem with the A.I. Rule that Shades has put in place to prevent MG 2.0 spamming threads with A.I. generated content that he portrays, dishonestly, as if it’s his own words. It’s that Shades has allowed for A.I. generated content ”factual” content to be used - the example Shades gave was of a scripture.

You make a good point. Fortunately, that problem wasn't written into the rule itself; it's only in the post you quoted wherein I gave an example of a very strict circumstance where it wouldn't be problematic. I doubt anyone other than MG 2.0 will have a problem with misinterpreting it. Considering his recent lapse, though, I don't think leaving that example out would've changed his behavior.

Continually expecting MG to do the right thing and manage himself, after so many examples of where he has promised to do so and then immediately shown he has no intention of doing so, is a fool’s errand.

I don't typically publicly state when I've issued someone a suspension, because I don't like to embarrass anyone, but in this case I feel the need to inform you that I issued MG 2.0 a very brief suspension for violating the A.I.-generated content rule yet again so he knows we're serious about it. Therefore, it's not necessary to claim that I let another of his violations stand without consequence.