Just quantity. Besides, it is an important part of PF's mission statement to help educate people, even the ones that post silly stuff. We don't want to waste our time trying to train something that's not even human.
I guess I’m confused. Im trying to think of a use case where you’re worried about quantity that doesn’t fall afoul of preexisting prohibitions on spam posting.
I don't think that's true. Do you have a source for that claim?
Quantity: A user can "answer" tons of threads with long AI-generated nonsense, but they are unlikely to do that if they have to come up with answers on their own.
It doesn't look like spam unless you check it closely. It looks like detailed answers.
Alas no. Just a bit of hyperbole. I have been working on organizing a debate on driverless cars and I haven't been able to find a volunteer for the pro side. But the pool I have been drawing from is mostly older people.
I like it when they bold their complaint against the moderators at the bottom of the post. It makes it easier to separate the bot from human created content!
This was the standard approach back in the Usenet era when you had to be with an educational institution or decent-sized tech company to have internet access. When bad stuff hit the Usenet feed we would contact the sysadmin at the offender's institution, they would reply with something along the lines "thank you for the heads-up - his account is deactivated until he and I have had a conversation" and the problem would be gone.
Shush.While I wouldn't say that things work this way today - they don't - and without divulging mentor tools, I think you have a little more knowledge and leverage than that.