Thanks for the link =)

About bots, I view bots as no different than rocks or circle saws in the value of their opinions. I view even the most depraved person as capable of sublimity that isn't potential in things that aren't alive.

I presently don't see a way to directly utilize bots to curate in a way that doesn't value their 'opinions' equally to people, so I remain opposed to that use for them. I recognize that the platform presently isn't capable of some kind of Turing test to differentiate between bots and people, so see no point in trying to completely prevent bot curation.

However, you mentioned bots that can suggest content to curators, and this strikes me as very appropriate, even serendipitous, as it fully capitalizes on the ability of people to use tools to improve their productivity while leaving the actual valuation of content to people.

So far, it's the only use for bots in curation that I support unreservedly, and that with the caveat that any rigid system of examining data fails to recognize the possibility that outliers may well be key to transformative epiphanies. I note that a post about SativaYoga has changed the way I think recently, and that neither Yoga nor Weed are topics are generally treat.

Such posts wouldn't be suggested to curators using such a bot, which means that the Mark I eyeball is still the best way to find content that might be interesting.

Nothing will ever be perfect, but that curation suggestion bot is as close as I've seen to an idea that perfectly solves the problem of information overload.