Researcher's POV: Auto bots creating fake content?
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:55 pm
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.
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.
)