Researcher's POV: Auto bots creating fake content?

[Aster-P]

Let us be the first to say it: Some of the reports in Study #1 sound so fake. But that's not all. They sound almost mechanically fake.

As the surveying was unfolding, reading each post and then answering the survey criteria, quite a few times a similar scenario would happen. The post would be markedly similar to a post from the previous set of 10. It might include the same offhand descriptors, or such. Twice is coincidence and three's a pattern? Did this person get the idea from the other person? Did the earlier post stir a memory in this OP?

After it happening several times the question became... is this some kind of fake? There are auto bots that can autonomously create content based on earlier inputs.

However just when it seemed that might be a real possibility, some of those reports received supplementary comments from the OP to answer what other commenters had said. So that throws the debate back into "wtf" territory.

These kinds of reports are historic and perpetual though, a fact that lends itself to both believers and skeptics. On on hand that seems to indicate that (it) must be true if so many report the same things. But OTOH, a few stories passed around endlessly because of how much attention (it) always brings, is plausible.

That's all for now but this is an issue for which we'll take up a watch.

[Aster-P]

(Yes I'm replying to myself. I'm lonely here writing all the starter content by myself )

Shortly after writing the post above, this article came across my news aggregator:

Did A Robot Write This? How AI Is Impacting Journalism
by Nicole Martin, published by Forbes.com (TWO YEARS AGO) on Feb 8, 2019.
(Mind you, this appeared in my aggregator on 05/31/21. I'm writing this reply 06/05/21.)
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolemart ... bd14567795

TL;DR: The article said (two years ago!) that Bloomberg, (themselves- Forbes), and The Washington Post all use AI to help write stories. (Anyone who's spent time around Yahoo News can attest to this process also.)

So it's quite possible... that someone is having us on by using old content from r/paranormal to post "new" (fake) stories/reports.

Does that mean we shut down the whole works?

No, I personally don't think that's sensible. If any reports are fake, that would be a HUGE disappointment even if not a surprise. This source, r/paranormal was used because the stories were already documented. The same kinds of stories/reports can be heard on other paranormal groups/pages/podcasts. Not all reports are fake.

People who genuinely seek answers should find answers. For that reason we proceed promoting all the answers that science has found for "disturbing" paranormal claims.

One way to mitigate fake reports is to intake reports here at APP.

We can't do much with anecdotes, but, any claims worth investigating won't have been faked, as the claim has to be ongoing and observable.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Semi-Creepy Fact: Each of the three news organizations gave names to their AI Bots, respectively "Cyborg," "Bertie," and "Heliograf." No, I guess it isn't strange to name a computer program. Windows, WOW, Farmville, and MS-Excel are all good examples of named programs.