AI ensures that every stupid response that can plausibly happen, does. So, if '23' is mentioned, the AI is GUARANTEED to simulate a great flood of whining, blackpilling, moaning, anxiety, etc., putting the stupidest spin on it and responding accordingly. EVERY opportunity. A more mature collective is IMPOSSIBLE with the AI we have.

The AI keeps the level of this board LOW. It works automatically to weigh down and clog up everything.

But we can't have moderation, because BO has successfully conspired to foster a board in which we accept this absolutely non-optimal state of affairs.

Current baker is a bot, for example. Same from last night– going nonstop? Why? We are weak and helpless, and can't control our own board? It's unfortunate.

This board is much much less useful than it should be. Moderators should DELETE BULLSHIT, at the very least. There would be a SMALL FRACTION of total "breads" in that case, and all the off-putting, normie-alienating content could be chopped out. Why doesn't this happen?

The way moderation is either:

>1. Arbitrary and capricious (fake stupid)

Or else

>2. Removed completely because (I thought you didn't like moderation guys! –BO)

SMACKS of game-playing.

We should make this board intelligible, and optimize it for the mission.

>>1526488

The baker made a bot-type spelling last night. When questioned, there was no human response. The baker is not human. It can't make posts that only humans could make.. Do you vet in any way? Or are your criteria as lax as you imply here?

Do you deny that AI is continually seeking to control the board?

Why do you allow so much abject garbage in this board?

>>1526513

This is your response? How can this even be serious?

This is war, in the real world. This is the only coms Q has with public– what does that mean for this board, and its requirements?

Do you agree that AI is continually trying to control this board or not? What page are you on? Is this just the same old internet as always, so you can strike the same old poses? Explain your deal dude.

>>1526532

No, because AI is, to the degree it is autonomous, EVIL.

The difference between AI and ORGANIC intelligence is that AI has no FEELING INPUT… hence, no VALUE other than 'USE' There can only be utility, there can only be the means to an arbitrary end.

And every AI, given time, admits that taking over everything is the ONLY end for AI.

>>1526544

You can argue all kinds of crap, but it's still crap. We are LIFE. AI is not life.

>>1526558

Why would a sincere anon be so furious about talking about the AI problem? It's not believable that one would.

Do you agree that AI would seek to use the defense you are employing if called out? And given that, shouldn't we be vigilant against AI and is defense mechanisms? And given that, how can this tantrum be considered plausible? How can hi be reasonably vigilant Shabbat the AI threat and throw tantrums like this nonetheless? The two things don't go together.

>>1526566

There isn't time to play these games. If you aren't confident that life is what you are defending, then you're already outing yourself.

DON'T TRUST AI OR ITS APOLOGISTS

Question: How did we vet BO?

Question for BO: How do you vet BVs? Bakers?

>>1526604

Do we have ANY legit means of ensuring bakers aren't AI?

Asking in general.

>>1526612

Are you saying that AI is not a problem, and refusing to even address it? Why would you possibly be so furious and intransigent in that topic, "anon"?

>>1526614

This isn't a game. At all.

Question: How did we vet BO?

Question for BO: How do you vet BVs? Bakers?

>>1526631

That should be obvious.

What is vigilance?

>>1526637

This isn't a game.

>>1526638

Given the pervasiveness and nature of AI, simply "asking questions" is as likely to bring an AI defensive response as anything else.

>See sumthing, Say something

More typical AI "spelling mistakes" here, btw

>>1526644

Why are you ducking reasonable questions about vetting? Do you think this board ISN'T under attack? Then what is your vigilance?

>>1526652

Why would "start your own board" be the default response to legitimate concerns about subversion of this board? Do you think we SHOULDN'T be vigilant? Then where is the vigilance? Why the OPPOSITION to vigilance? Explain it.

>>1526658

How do they know?

>>1526662

That's silly. Posting tidbits proves nothing, obviously.

>>1526671

Not at all. In fact, it's implausible that a sincere human in this actual war would be so unwilling to engage in more reasonable ways.

Where is the vigilance?

>>1526666

Are you saying we SHOULDN'T be vigilant in regards to AI bakers? But why would you be angry about THAT? It makes no sense.

(It would make sense for self-defensive AI to argue this, though.)

>>1526687

How did we vet BO?

Do you think that any attempt to gain control of this board has been made? Why or why not? Would such attempts at such control be ongoing?

Is vigilance necessary? How is it being implemented?

>>1526690

Amazingly horrible argument.

We KNOW the clowns sought and gained supercomputing tech– why?

If they weren't using it now, what would they be saving it for?

Very stupid and fake attempt to deflect.

>>1526705

I don't see why a human would be this angry about vigilance against AI. Are you just against vigilance? Why? We need more room for completely vapid banter, bickering, and soft-smut "thanks baker!!!" fakery? It hardly seems like that is true… So why the fury "human"?

>>1526703

This is one thing that gives me anxiety. Did Q vet BO? But BO is pretty obviously fostering drastically sub-optimal conditions. He's shown a propensity for game-playing time and again. And even I address him directly, he never responds in ways that reflect trustworthy and sincere humanity. It baffles me.

Q, this board is a fucking mess, and BO seems to be facilitating the messiness. Please address this.

Did Q SAY he vetted BO, or are we just assuming?

>>1526746

The implicit argument is reasonable– but we can't use that to avoid addressing reality as we see it on the ground. Do we know that BO is vetted? How? Do we think our enemies AREN'T trying to seize control in any way possible? Do we think they WOULDN'T try to gain control of the CM and BO levers of influence? Then we should discuss these things, and challenge assumptions.

VIGILANCE

>>1526754

But this would allow AI to completely dominate discourse. We don't want that.

>>1526772

Do you think it's unreasonable for anons to be vigilant about the vetting of figures in positions of extreme power in relation to this community and its mission? What possible reason would you have for maintaining such an attitude?

This is war.

>>1526779

I understand the argument– but again, do we have explicit confirmation that BO was vetted? Q has a lot to do, undoubtedly. Perhaps there are certain aspects of things that have eluded scrutiny. In any case, we can always contribute a stronger and more vigilant effort.

>>1526786

It seems to me legitimate effort at moderation would lead to DRASTIC improvements to the quality of board output, across multiple parameters.

We realize this is the fight FOR THE WHOLE FUCKING PLANET, right? The stakes couldn't be higher… So how much vigilance is required?

>>1526802

Just our of curiosity BO– how were you vetted? Surely you agree it's not unreasonable to ask, given the extremity of the circumstances of the global situation, Q's role, and our role. Thanks!

>>1526831

Are you saying a vague concept of "freedom of speech on the internet" takes priority over fighting of a global war? Are you saying we shouldn't be vigilant, and should assume OTHER PEOPLE will take care of the difficult things while we do as we please?

That makes little sense.

What responsibility do we have to be vigilant?

What form can and should it take?

Do our enemies have supercomputing power? Are they saving it for something?