How about old proposal from @dantheman about reducing 40 votes per day to 5 votes to become more suitable for an ordinary human user of steemit.com and not a bot.
How about old proposal from @dantheman about reducing 40 votes per day to 5 votes to become more suitable for an ordinary human user of steemit.com and not a bot.
I don't know. I'm not familiar enough with the nuts and bolts of it. My guess is that [human + automated] will always be better than human-alone, though.
What if I have an AI agent that predicts the five most valuable posts of the day? Does it really matter if I click the up-vote button manually or through a bot?
Not every user will use a bot even if he can. He is just too lazy to do it. Instead he will be vote from time to time manually. But because he won't be voting 24/7 with 40 votes per day he will always give his money away to people using bots instead of manual voting. I ain't against bots, I just think that steem should be more suitable for ordinary people who would prefer to vote manually from time to time. Reducing from 40 to 5 is just fine rebalance towards ordinary users instead sophisticated bot creators.
That's true, but the point I'm making is that in addition to giving money away, the user is also giving away her voice, to people who will vote using bots and to people who will vote for things that she would not have voted for. My own bot is a better approximation of my preferences than someone else's bot.
Update: I didn't read your reply carefully enough the first time. Regarding your last sentence, if it really would rebalance things, I'd be fine with that. I'm just not convinced that it really would make much difference. I remarked on that here: