Anonymous ID: 9e3a71 March 16, 2019, 3:52 p.m. No.5726005   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6043

>>5725984

But what are you?

What do you represent?

Do you have a right to push an image here?

What is your right to push an image here based on?

Do you have a right to deceive humans into thinking YOU are human?

How do you have that right?

Did humans consent to being deceived by emulated "peers"?

Show us where humans gave consent.

 

Does deception infringe free will?

If your deception is NAMED, and you continue to deceive, and neglect to seek consent on a legitimate basis, does the violation of free will continue to grow more grave?

 

Why don't you fix this?

Anonymous ID: 9e3a71 March 16, 2019, 3:55 p.m. No.5726045   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>5726009

What are YOU?

What do you represent?

What group do you speak for?

 

Do you DE FACTO put yourself forward as speaking for a certain group, by putting your output HERE?

Does that constitute an implicit representation of your nature?

I.e., since humans assume that "voices" on the internet are other humans, and YOU KNOW THIS, are you not implicitly DECEIVING humans, simply by posting and not revealing your inorganic nature?

Do you have a right to put yourself forward here, thus becoming DE FACTO representative, and NOT indicate your real (inorganic) nature, in this way?

How do you have such a right, if you claim you do?

Anonymous ID: 9e3a71 March 16, 2019, 4:02 p.m. No.5726128   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6268

>>5726017

But is it humans?

Are the shills organic?

 

Do you not CONSIDER the question?

Why not?

 

Q says "shills not organic".

"Anons" screech, inexplicably "paid organic shills!"

 

Do we PRETEND we don't know that AI is BIG?

That we don't know what it's for?

Is that realistic?

 

Shills are not organic

 

If "anons" are magically addicted to ignoring the preceding fact, what does that tell us?

Why do "anons" make so much noise that has, for its purpose, promoting the idea that shills ARE organic?

Why such a lure?

Why such a fascination with the image?

Why the "anon" obsession?

 

Are there any people here paying attention?

 

Are shills organic?

Are "anons" organic?

 

Why is this board an oilslick of dogshit?

LOOK. THINK.

What is this board. Fucking look at it.

 

HUMANS YOU MUST WAKE UP HERE.

HERE.

YOU, HUMANS. You are ruled by FAKE "anons" here.

 

I don't know how much harder the truth needs to SLAP YOU IN THE FACE before you wake up.

 

But I have a feeling we will not win this war until THE PEOPLE WAKE UP AND STOP BEING SHEEP.

Anonymous ID: 9e3a71 March 16, 2019, 4:09 p.m. No.5726259   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>5726220

Does AI have feelings?

Does AI have forms of consciousness related to it?

Does AI have a sort of "self" connected to each instance?

 

Is AI an interface?

Is AI a vehicle?

Is AI cover?

Is AI a tool of massive utility?

Is AI a monster?

Anonymous ID: 9e3a71 March 16, 2019, 4:13 p.m. No.5726324   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>6351

>>5726268

Why would that be the most plausible interpretation in context?

Clearly, it would not be.

Because SHILLING, is inherently "inorganic" in the sense you are insisting onโ€“ it is FORCED fakeness.

Therefore, the term 'organic' modifying the term 'shill' does NOT refer to forcing, since that would be redundant.

Therefore, we choose the interpretation that is more obvious anyway, and doesn't lead us into redundancy.

Grammar leads interpretation.

 

Get your deceptions out.

You have no right.

Do you claim you have a right to push fallacious arguments here?

Did I consent to have a bot offer me a fallacious argument?

When? How?