It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are there 'bot' skeptics on ATS?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Too many James Bond movies for me perhaps?

or perhaps this is not so difficult to believe if you know 'why'.

1 Cost would be minimal (of course if you don't believe a black government does disinformation you may as well stop listening here).

2 Eschalon have been spying on everyone since conception, the amount of resources these guys have would be light years away from what we are led to believe.

3 To retain control by keeping Top Secret, just that - away from prying eyes and minds.

4 The "souless" bot would have no problem with human emotion (I like to think Dr Spock as an example of a program type), therefore would not respond with the emotion that often does carry through after an extensive back and forth 'debate'.

Hey I ain't saying there are REAL HUMAN skeptics with no agenda apart from finding truth on here either. They are usually the ones that have rational.

wZn




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Uh no way dude! I'm very skeptical of this. It's just not possible!
I'm so skepticle man! This is just crazy! I'm just really skeptical. It's impossible...

Edit: Just wanted to remind you I'm really skeptical about this.



[edit on 10-2-2009 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
Uh no way dude! I'm very skeptical of this. It's just not possible!
I'm so skepticle man! This is just crazy! I'm just really skeptical. It's impossible...

Edit: Just wanted to remind you I'm really skeptical about this.



[edit on 10-2-2009 by _Phoenix_]


You should emphasise it by putting "skeptical" in your signature. Everyone else does


*clears throat"

[edit on 10-2-2009 by dodgygeeza]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
I mean it couldn't be that hard to program one could it?


Call me a skeptical robot, but I say: Hell yeah it could be.

Have you talked to a chatterbot recent? Not the pinnacle of learned discourse.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Skeptic bots would be most useful when they are under control by a single operator using shorthand or short key commands to make them respond to a post.

Lets say you got member "BigTimeSkeptic" here, and this nice fella is joined by another member "ProveIT" and "NOWayJOse". The latter two are bots. They are controlled by "BigTimeSkeptic" using special key commands to read and respond to posts selected by the operator with those shortcut key commands. These bots will also post anything that the operator tells them to post. So instead of just 1 skeptic to deal with, you got 3, two of which are not entirely automated bots, but supplemental to the 1 true living skeptic.

I dont think there are autonomus bots, but I do know that there are bot programs that can be controlled in real time by an operator, and there is no reason why such a devious operation would limit itself to just 1 supplement bot.

Just pay attention to the very hot topic discussions that suddenly get a plethora of skeptic posts, most of which will be by recently joined participants and even anonymous participants.

This is NOT byond current computer code or ability.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 10-2-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I finally get what you're talking about -- chat-bots.

No, I doubt they're capable of convincing debate. I do however believe in living, breathing dis-info agents.

That said, I ran across this post on a thread which 'was' a serious discussion on the possibility that the universe is a hologram:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It reaks of a possible skeptic chatterbot. It was out of the blue, had no real info to back it, and was full of simple mistakes. The first thing I thought was 'that reply can't be real.'

[edit on 10/2/09 by Evasius]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evasius

It was out of the blue, had no real info to back it, and was full of simple mistakes.


Sounds like a typical ATS post if you ask me.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
If you mean bots that chat, I seriously doubt it. It's easy to imagine, easy to talk about but you have no idea what would be involved in making such a thing. And even if the bot did exist, it would only be able to put out predetermined arguments.

Meaning, it wouldn't be able to address your specific points and so on.

It is possible, but it would take less resources just to hire someone to sit around and do such things full time. Not to mention much much more effective.

If you mean people who act like bots, then yeah tons of them for all sides of an issue. Go into a political thread, and it's like watching the days talking points for each "side" being spewed out constantly. Like people repeat what they see on the news or some talk show and think they are "smart".



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Its as simple as messaging someone, making them your friend and messaging...IF THEY DONT RESPOND THEY COULD BE A "BOT".



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evasius
I finally get what you're talking about -- chat-bots.


Not exactly but a variant. A typical chat bot is usually pre-programmed with responses to certian key words and phrases, where as a supplemental bot is actually under real time control of an operator, using either shorthand or shortcut key commands to enable the bot to respond appropriately. Almost dynamic and certianly within current computing code and capabilities.



Originally posted by Evasius
No, I doubt they're capable of convincing debate. I do however believe in living, breathing dis-info agents.


There are living, breathing disinfo agents. I was once one of them years ago. They are everywhere, in forums, blogs, chat rooms, anywhere there is a public gathering of discussion about controversial subjects. Some are there to research public opinion, some are there to derail the flow of a discussion that gets too close to the truth. They can be spotted easily with a little practice.


Originally posted by Evasius
That said, I ran across this post on a thread which 'was' a serious discussion on the possibility that the universe is a hologram:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It reaks of a possible skeptic chatterbot. It was out of the blue, had no real info to back it, and was full of simple mistakes. The first thing I thought was 'that reply can't be real.'


Rest assured, the disinfo op's are well educated, well versed in grammar and spelling, and quite resourceful with their responses. They even have a special phrases and formatting in their replies to communicate with one another right in front of everyone participating and they wouldnt have a clue about it.

The old saying...somtimes the best hiding place is right out in the open.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
This "bot" is certainly a skeptic and has his buttons pushed quite often.

I am 100% flesh and blood though and work for nobody but me.


[edit on 10/2/2009 by nerbot]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Even if a program could predict the future.
Even if it was well programmed.
Even if it had access to all the data on the Internet.
Even if it was perfect.
It would still only have the information and stupidity and the misinformation that was digitized in a non-narrative format available to it.
Therefore, the predictions would always be predicated on AT BEST human conscious data preservation.
A very poor source indeed.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Who were you working for as a disinfo agent? If you can elaborate on this part of your life I would be interested, I'm sure others as well.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


There's always time for skepticism. I consider myself skeptical in about 99.9% of information suggested on ATS. The problem is is there are some skeptics that to prove their point will just leave out certain key evidence in their explanation or are skeptical on the matter at hand just to....be a skeptic.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join