You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is It Plagiarism Or Is It Innovative? - A bot written article (by LAURA)
Oh, dont worry, you are just adding ANOTHER point to what I've been trying to prove this last week... Bots under the control of incapable people, are only harmful. Those "blind votes" are hurting the platform.
I've been pretty happy to participate in the Steemit bot Tragedy of the Commons, because I'm being actively incentivized to do so. So suppose everybody on Steemit decided that bots shouldn't be allowed. How could a bot ban actually be implemented?
A change on the whole system would be needed, to prevent piston from being so easily used. And still, browser-based bots could emulate human interaction (Laura does, Firefox + JS). The problem is way deeper than a UI being too accessible. Limiting the votes/min (since, after all, to CURATE something people need to read it). So far, I consider votebots "betbots", bidding on author's names and reputation, not on the QoC.
Betbots is a fine way to put it. But doesn't betting over outcomes describe basically all machine learning? Even a NN content-evaluator would be probabilistically applying heuristics to determine what constitutes high quality.
It would be very interesting to study the impact of eliminating curation rewards. That would shut down a huge number of today's bots, certainly including mine.
The problem is that the machine learning taking other bots (or autovote scripts) into consideration, a feedback creating a recursive loop... We all know that recursive loops are no good! x=x+1...
The current "status quo" of automated votes is only broadening certain people's wallets that by a strike of chance: got "selected" as preferred racehorses.
And still, it defeats the purpose of curating (perhaps the term "curation rewards" needs to be changed?).