Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 3:46 a.m. No.1526472   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6488 >>6522 >>6666 >>6775

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 nightโ€“ going nonstop? Why? We are weak and helpless, and can't control our own board? It's unfortunate.

Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 3:52 a.m. No.1526492   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6666 >>7008

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! โ€“BO)

SMACKS of game-playing.

 

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

Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 3:56 a.m. No.1526507   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6513

>>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?

Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 4:02 a.m. No.1526520   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6558 >>6587 >>6666 >>6887 >>7047

>>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 publicโ€“ 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.

Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 4:08 a.m. No.1526551   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6666 >>7055

The difference between AI and ORGANIC intelligence is that AI has no FEELING INPUTโ€ฆ 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.

Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 4:13 a.m. No.1526569   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6612

>>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.

Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 4:51 a.m. No.1526722   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>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 trueโ€ฆ So why the fury "human"?

Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 4:57 a.m. No.1526742   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6754 >>6779 >>6836 >>7022

>>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?

Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 5:01 a.m. No.1526758   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6762 >>6766 >>7070

>>1526746

The implicit argument is reasonableโ€“ 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

Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 5:06 a.m. No.1526782   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>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.

Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 5:08 a.m. No.1526801   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6916

>>1526779

 

I understand the argumentโ€“ 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.

Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 5:12 a.m. No.1526812   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6831

>>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 higherโ€ฆ So how much vigilance is required?

Anonymous ID: 21f704 May 24, 2018, 5:22 a.m. No.1526851   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6865 >>6889

>>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?