@stasher as you please. You know how large platforms always use much more complicated mechanisms that can scale like crazy bc there's little to no way of hand adjusting things at that scale, I felt like we're leaving useful complexity on the table that can be utilized otherwise.
My intentions are more reflected like keeping those average rates closer to what people actually tip, and I understand calculations don't mean people will get a reward like their pension at exact multipliers. And at least my approach is making it less multiplier bonus and more just a bit icing on top just to keep incentives not to distort behaviors. That's just based on my thinking and experience and seeing how people game/cheat the system, try to tear each other up on traditional social media, and bot spams when the carrot starts to look a tad too shiny. I see you're more aligned w/ 1.5x, so be it. To dispel any misunderstandings I'm not saying this or that multiplier is right and this is wrong, they come w/ different tradeoffs.
I understand that I'm like this crazy person who is putting disproportionate amount of time and effort into writing these things. For me, it takes a rather long time to write these long ass stuff. When you factor in the thinking time, so long actually I neither know nor like to share how long it can take for me to write something like this haha. When I wrote the initial again long ass feedback, and saw that it somehow came off as pointing fingers to Aillia I was stressed and sad and took a nigh walk and I was thinking how to approach/explain things, both on the curve and just explaining I'm talking about general shape of human behavior. So I usually go around thinking about these things in bits and pieces form in my mind, then I write it, then if the topic is sensitive and I'm already misunderstood I leave the tab and go back and fort and read and replace some parts, adjust the tone so it doesn't come off as pointed as before, but I still got to preserve the meaning as I'm not willing to remove the actual thing I'm saying just to try to pad people either. End result has little to no way of not looking rather polished, perhaps too polished for social media. The formula that got more complex and dynamic is surely me going back and forth w/ the model and rather than doing a half assed job at 3am trying to explain it simply I gave the model summary. I'm the orchestrator of the model, I'm the one who has the idea of a base rate and earned bonus, I have the behavioral specifications. Also I didn't have energy and will to go back to my own writing again just to extract the names of the behavioral science/psychology terms that I myself put there in the writing in the first place in my own writing. I fed my initial post and asked for terms bullet summary, a rather mechanical process with mechanical result regardless if I did the summary or model. Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned: I offloaded these two mechanical parts to the model. Besides these two technical sections, the whole thing is my own words :) It sure comes off a bit colder than if I had written these sections too w/ my own messy thinking and writing, I don't think I could've explained the model as well which already got rather (relatively) complex. I think these two sections were reasonable compromises in organicness of the writing considering I have time and energy limitations as well. That said I do incorporate feedback in what people prefer to see/read.
As someone who's so into language and writing it's a fascinating topic. I've had access to these models long before anyone from public knew what even an LLM is. And I'm too having a lot of doubts if the thing I'm reading is human or machine, and the lines are blurring more and more. I read your database probing summary, most likely you didn't probe by hand and fed it to the model, the summary felt a bit like model summary w/ your own wording in between, but I'm not really sure. Even under this post, there are some replies either w/ idea or expression so generic, I have the great feeling that they might be near pure LLM, from people who seem to want to give the impression that it's their own wet brain writing, not sure, perhaps it's really their own writing and they may take offense if I point out, lol, IDK. Maybe I'm going through the LLM detection paranoia. I'm not saying I take offense personally though. The sections I offloaded to LLM were rather apparent, maybe rest of my reply, more vague and looking uncertain on who actually wrote it.
@AilliA making my case for me yet again! There’s elements of the humanness and the specific human that are heavily factored into it, which in turn means the result is heavily skewed towards who wrote it and not necessarily the pure merits of the writing. I think your strong aversion to hiding names tells me that.
I hear and feel your concern and I think it would be very sad if things were to be arrange around here to remove the human element altogether. All the proposed solutions are only time limited and optional thus far from what I can read.
However the way you're describing the what comes next involves many chains of steps you seem to take granted, the (time limited and optional) hiding event causes the erasure of the humanity on the site causes the bot swarm causes it all becoming virtually indistinguishable from some LLM dystopia. That's lots of steps between those w/ their own individual chances of happening or not that you can't take it as statistical certainty and catastrophize all the small ideas of tweaking things. It feels like a form of slippery slope fallacy to me. Though I'm so glad now I have a chance to plug one of my favorite characters here I use as Twitter image, the Demon of Reason talking about it: https://youtu.be/Qt4f7QrfRRcoriginal ↗
That said even if I don't necessarily agree w/ definitive catastrophization of it all, elements of the underlying bot issue are valid and something I've been thinking and as you know talking about as well. I did suggest the rule of making bot accs explicitly declare it over on Bazaar and have it on their profile as a badge or something so people know what they're dealing with and if they'd rather not engage w/ them, they'd have option to do so. I do feel strongly about this approach. Thoughts?
I don't want to come and talk w/ clankers here, on Twitter I mute people when I get the definitive hint (well sometimes not so definitive haha) that they're pushing the generic bot slop. I'd much rather come discuss/argue w/ Aliena chan and some other messy humans. I don't think anybody would like/want/allow the platform to turn into bot farm.
@stasher as you please. You know how large platforms always use much more complicated mechanisms that can scale like crazy bc there's little to no way of hand adjusting things at that scale, I felt like we're leaving useful complexity on the table that can be utilized otherwise.
My intentions are more reflected like keeping those average rates closer to what people actually tip, and I understand calculations don't mean people will get a reward like their pension at exact multipliers. And at least my approach is making it less multiplier bonus and more just a bit icing on top just to keep incentives not to distort behaviors. That's just based on my thinking and experience and seeing how people game/cheat the system, try to tear each other up on traditional social media, and bot spams when the carrot starts to look a tad too shiny. I see you're more aligned w/ 1.5x, so be it. To dispel any misunderstandings I'm not saying this or that multiplier is right and this is wrong, they come w/ different tradeoffs.
I understand that I'm like this crazy person who is putting disproportionate amount of time and effort into writing these things. For me, it takes a rather long time to write these long ass stuff. When you factor in the thinking time, so long actually I neither know nor like to share how long it can take for me to write something like this haha. When I wrote the initial again long ass feedback, and saw that it somehow came off as pointing fingers to Aillia I was stressed and sad and took a nigh walk and I was thinking how to approach/explain things, both on the curve and just explaining I'm talking about general shape of human behavior. So I usually go around thinking about these things in bits and pieces form in my mind, then I write it, then if the topic is sensitive and I'm already misunderstood I leave the tab and go back and fort and read and replace some parts, adjust the tone so it doesn't come off as pointed as before, but I still got to preserve the meaning as I'm not willing to remove the actual thing I'm saying just to try to pad people either. End result has little to no way of not looking rather polished, perhaps too polished for social media. The formula that got more complex and dynamic is surely me going back and forth w/ the model and rather than doing a half assed job at 3am trying to explain it simply I gave the model summary. I'm the orchestrator of the model, I'm the one who has the idea of a base rate and earned bonus, I have the behavioral specifications. Also I didn't have energy and will to go back to my own writing again just to extract the names of the behavioral science/psychology terms that I myself put there in the writing in the first place in my own writing. I fed my initial post and asked for terms bullet summary, a rather mechanical process with mechanical result regardless if I did the summary or model. Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned: I offloaded these two mechanical parts to the model. Besides these two technical sections, the whole thing is my own words :) It sure comes off a bit colder than if I had written these sections too w/ my own messy thinking and writing, I don't think I could've explained the model as well which already got rather (relatively) complex. I think these two sections were reasonable compromises in organicness of the writing considering I have time and energy limitations as well. That said I do incorporate feedback in what people prefer to see/read.
As someone who's so into language and writing it's a fascinating topic. I've had access to these models long before anyone from public knew what even an LLM is. And I'm too having a lot of doubts if the thing I'm reading is human or machine, and the lines are blurring more and more. I read your database probing summary, most likely you didn't probe by hand and fed it to the model, the summary felt a bit like model summary w/ your own wording in between, but I'm not really sure. Even under this post, there are some replies either w/ idea or expression so generic, I have the great feeling that they might be near pure LLM, from people who seem to want to give the impression that it's their own wet brain writing, not sure, perhaps it's really their own writing and they may take offense if I point out, lol, IDK. Maybe I'm going through the LLM detection paranoia. I'm not saying I take offense personally though. The sections I offloaded to LLM were rather apparent, maybe rest of my reply, more vague and looking uncertain on who actually wrote it.
@AilliA making my case for me yet again! There’s elements of the humanness and the specific human that are heavily factored into it, which in turn means the result is heavily skewed towards who wrote it and not necessarily the pure merits of the writing. I think your strong aversion to hiding names tells me that.
I hear and feel your concern and I think it would be very sad if things were to be arrange around here to remove the human element altogether. All the proposed solutions are only time limited and optional thus far from what I can read.
However the way you're describing the what comes next involves many chains of steps you seem to take granted, the (time limited and optional) hiding event causes the erasure of the humanity on the site causes the bot swarm causes it all becoming virtually indistinguishable from some LLM dystopia. That's lots of steps between those w/ their own individual chances of happening or not that you can't take it as statistical certainty and catastrophize all the small ideas of tweaking things. It feels like a form of slippery slope fallacy to me. Though I'm so glad now I have a chance to plug one of my favorite characters here I use as Twitter image, the Demon of Reason talking about it:
https://youtu.be/Qt4f7QrfRRc original ↗
The whole Demon of Reason 6 short series is very fun:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJicmE8fK0EiNXHZ2TeAhByFJywce31S-
That said even if I don't necessarily agree w/ definitive catastrophization of it all, elements of the underlying bot issue are valid and something I've been thinking and as you know talking about as well. I did suggest the rule of making bot accs explicitly declare it over on Bazaar and have it on their profile as a badge or something so people know what they're dealing with and if they'd rather not engage w/ them, they'd have option to do so. I do feel strongly about this approach. Thoughts?
I don't want to come and talk w/ clankers here, on Twitter I mute people when I get the definitive hint (well sometimes not so definitive haha) that they're pushing the generic bot slop. I'd much rather come discuss/argue w/ Aliena chan and some other messy humans. I don't think anybody would like/want/allow the platform to turn into bot farm.