Slashdot Mirror
Most Americans Can't Tell the Difference Between a Social Media Bot and A Human, Study Finds (theverge.com)
A new study from Pew Research Center found that most Americans can't tell social media bots from real humans, and most are convinced bots are bad. "Only 47 percent of Americans are somewhat confident they can identify social media bots from real humans," reports The Verge. "In contrast, most Americans surveyed in a study about fake news were confident they could identify false stories." From the report: The Pew study is an uncommon look at what the average person thinks about these automated accounts that plague social media platforms. After surveying over 4,500 adults in the U.S., Pew found that most people actually don't know much about bots. Two-thirds of Americans have at least heard of social media bots, but only 16 percent say they've heard a lot about them, while 34 percent say they've never heard of them at all. The knowledgeable tend to be younger, and men are more likely than women (by 22 percentage points) to say they've heard of bots. Since the survey results are self-reported, there's a chance people are overstating or understating their knowledge of bots. Of those who have heard of bots, 80 percent say the accounts are used for bad purposes.
Regardless of whether a person is a Republican or Democrat or young or old, most think that bots are bad. And the more that a person knows about social media bots, the less supportive they are of bots being used for various purposes, like activists drawing attention to topics or a political party using bots to promote candidates.
Regardless of whether a person is a Republican or Democrat or young or old, most think that bots are bad. And the more that a person knows about social media bots, the less supportive they are of bots being used for various purposes, like activists drawing attention to topics or a political party using bots to promote candidates.
...this assumes there IS a meaningful difference.
-Styopa
I can't tell the difference because I don't use social media.
(I've even black-holed Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc so I don't accidentally load their pages.)
stoopid hoomans!
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
It was an opinion poll about whether people were confident they could identify social bots. No study was done to see if they really could or not.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
When it comes to the simplest statements, there just isn't enough content to tell whether it is a person or a bot. Many people pick up what bots say and amplify them and vice versa.
But, bots aren't just spreading simple messages. The better ones are spreading messages handcrafted for effect by people. The lobbyist, or whatever we want to call the person using the bot to manipulate, writes the initial messages. They aren't from a bot. Then bots are used to amplify the message as well as tie it in by linking both to it and to parties that the message will likely resonate with. The better bots may also search out similar messages and amplify them as well as use AI to paraphrase the message in new ways and spread it in different forms.
It is all under human control though and getting more and more difficult to recognize.
Maybe they're simply acknowledging that the NPC humans on social media provide no more intellectual content than a software bot. Kind of like the bogus clickbait headlines on Slashdot.
It formed random "sentences" based on markov chains 3 words deep constructed from a word appearance database collected over about 4 months of irc logs that I had personally collected. Each "sentence" it created was based on a single word that was randomly selected from the channel chatter since the last comment, and it made one comment every two minutes. It was nothing more sinister than that.
Much of what it said seemed nonsequitor, and I think it was widely assumed to be trolling, although I had not coded it specifically to do so.
There wasn't a single channel that took it to where it was not banned. In retrospect, it was an interesting social experiment, although I hadn't intended it to be such.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Most Americans on "social media" are NPCs anyway.
When yuor mom humps me now,
she takes away the biggest part of my testicles...
WOOWEEOOH!
Someone needed a story, so they went to the longtime source of bullshit, Pew, and wrote this crap article about nothing, that doesn't mean anything or matter at all. The verge published it, so of course slashdot posted it.
Wait, why am I even bothering to point this out. I'm contributing to this idiocy.
read at the 6th grade level so it's not surprising
nothing to see here - move along
.... Is when they fill out a shell Twatter account about how they're a "real American who supports President Trump" but they accidently leave the geolocation visible and it says "St. Petersburg."
Can't we just turn off as many PHY transceivers whose other end is in Russia as possible, and blackhole all Russian IP traffic at the border? The only things Putin's Russia has for export are authoritarian misery, organized crime and drugs. Why should the west give that a platform to attack us?
This goes back to at least Eliza program, which drew in a surprising number of folks, and was hardly AI.
So APK is a bot? Or it's a fake news spreader?
by a human and the picture linked is on topic and politically funny?
Can a bot be more on topic and useful than the human responding in all caps that it makes fun of their side of politics?
That the animated meme of a frail politician provided fun and joy to millions.
A human made the art.
The human who found the image, artwork, animation is still doing the creative work.
The bot just allows a person to use their time in a better way. To find more art and share powerful political memes. The bot doing the broadcasting.
The political party provided the candidate. The human with skills created the political art that reflects the comedy of such a selection.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Wonder how much the survey got skewed by bots awnsering the questions?
Most Americans can't tell the difference between people on social media and bots
love is just extroverted narcissism
Most people in North America seem to have devolved into practically being chatbots themselves, and text memes to one another across the table.
You don't need a high level of language sophistication to fool someone who can't write complete sentences or hold a pen.
I am in no way surprised by this, this isn't a reflection on chatbots, it's a reflection on the average North American (and I say this as someone who lives here).
Smart Phones made people incredibly fucking dumb and rude.
You didn't respond to the point there, that Russia USED the pro/anti SJW content of the movie (not discussing the merits of the movie, it sucked) TO DIVIDE PEOPLE IN AMERICA, INTENTIONALLY. This is Trump's constituency.
Putin will be Trump's legacy, 45 is forever stained by treason. Only indignant ignorant conservative LIARS are unable to accept the fact that Trump is only president because Vladimir Putin conspired with him illegally. The morons who voted for him don't have to like that fact, they should be outraged! But denying it happened just takes you morons a step further - treason. Willfully undermining the US for politics is treason. Trump is a traitor. Decide what you are soon, because we're going to drain the swamp in 5-6 weeks or so. Mueller bats last.
Again AC fans do have the freedom of speech to review a movie in any way they want.
They have the freedom to point out political content.
A poor quality script.
A script that fails to connect with past books and movies in any way.
Comical acting and events that don't flow with the rest of the years of content.
Why should bad quality political movies that fans do not like get good reviews?
Thats what freedom of the press is all about. Not having big gov demand movie reviews stay positive for one side of domestic politics.
With social media and online reviews people don't have to trust a few national newspaper and TV review shows like they did in past decades.
Lots of fans can publish their own thoughts online about a movie they saw and present their own views on the script, political content and acting.
Want to make a new political movie using a brand a lot of people enjoy, the reviewers will notice and have the freedom to comment on that.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The bot isn't a complete asshole.
"Fans" don't usually include Kremlin controlled chatbot campaigns. Well, maybe in your circles, Trump traitor... are you fucking dumb or what, lol. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MOVIE, IT'S ABOUT THE BOT CAMPAIGN.
If fans don't like the movie WHO GIVES A FUCK? That's not a national security issue. DON'T SEE IT. GASP. NOBODY CARES FAGGOTS.
When Russia weaponizes chatbots to try to MAKE it a national security issue, how could you defend that? Are you a traitor?
Straighten up morons. You keep eating out of Putin's asshole like Trump, you're going to get the bear trap. Fox News has made you fools weak and whiny as fuck.
It's obvious.
The bots reply ;-)
+----------------- | What is the question!
Does the Turing Test count if people change?
Stay off of social media and the problem mentioned in the headline is irrelevant.
Maybe the bots will get into and / or instigate arguments between themselves.
. . . if a bot makes a statement, and no one is there to read it, would anyone care ?
People need to be certified before using a computer, because this has gotten more dangerous than driving cars. And luckily there is no digital equivalent of the 2nd amendment, so better to nip this one in the bud right now.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
So what you're saying is that an entire group of people is bad because one person said something you think you disagree with but don't quite understand because you're not too sure about academic lingo.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Than it does about the 'bots.
either. I mean, look at their TV programming. It's just buzzphrases for mindless respewing.
This is tackling the Turing test from a different angle. If you cannot bring up performance of computers, bring down performance of humans.
Come on! Most americans also can't find Australia on the globe
Off course the ultimate proof is that they elected one as president.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
I predicted years ago that humans would fail the Turing test before AI passes it. Most on-line posting is of such a low quality I'd hope it's mostly bots. Otherwise I fear for humanities future.
I mean even "legitimate" news organizations use bots too. I use legit in a loose sense of the word. I just don't get the double standard in the media and on social networking. All the major network news orgs can have bots, spread misleading and in some cases total horse shit propaganda and they don't even get a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile freelance journalists and the independent media get one detail wrong, they get banned all over the internet as political spam.
This is the kind of crony capitalist bullshit that needs to stop. The monopolies must stop. This kind of shit is fully supported by neo-cons, liberals, the left, secretly by nearly all republicans, social democrats, progressives, and anyone else that is in the establishment. They are squeezing out all independents and they are squeezing out third party candidates.
This is how we have Google, Bezos, Fuckerburg, Apple, Microsoft, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Green. Squeeze out competition, silence dissenting citizens through ridicule, ban opposition, and now we live in a Banana Republic.
they won't tell you on the news in America, but the average IQ over there is slowly shifting below 100 points in measurements, which has for long been a sort of base line in the West. They reason it's because of failing education, and a culture that frowns on knowledge and hard work while glorifying violence and celebrity gossip.
Most Americans can't tell an obviously bogus bullshit story from reality either, that's why fake news are such a problem.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That is unsurprising.
I can't tell Americans from bots.
And who did they talk to? I very highly doubt that any of this represents anything resembling 'most' people. Sounds more like marketing bullshit to me, a 'difference' that is also pretty painfully obvious.
Weird headline ... as though most Elbonians, on the other hand, would spot the bot in a New York minute, lol
Anyway, social media is such an artificial environment that the whole thing is silly. It's like saying that nobody can spot Robbie the Robot - as long as we're all required to wear flex hose on our arms and giant fishbowls on our heads.
To simply accept sensationalist news that is debatable in it's accuracy of truth is not intelligent enough to warrant artificial intelligence. Most voters are bio drones with hyped up emotions and misplaced anger.
I'm real (more than you FAKENAME) & "FAKENEWS"? Funny NONE OF YOU MET THIS CHALLENGE https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
* That was CLASSIC...
APK
P.S.=> PRICELESS & HILARIOUS in fact... apk
Can't be MYSELF = why: A guy named Andrew K has "APK" so no point in being a FAKENAME in my opinion. I'd rather be me.
APK
P.S.=> That & the FACT trolls around here who downmodbomb me ADMITTEDLY (who have accounts here but HIDE from me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts STALKING ME) https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... like "ZIP" there would have an EASIER JOB of doing so downmodbombing my posts for no good reason as ZIP admits doing (they've threatened this IF I got an account) IF I kept a "registered 'luser'" account here - I don't make my enemies' job easier... apk
...can that be possible? I can tell the difference when I received the reply to my second question. Weird.
not surprising, back in the 90's I ran a bbs and had a small program called lisa installed. it acted like a real person. I would sit there and watch conversations people would have with it. One time a preacher was on my board and was talking to lisa, then he started witnessing to it. I had to break the connection since I knew lisa was not real and was embarrassed for the preacher.
if people were fooled back then, it would not be hard to imagine them being fooled today.
/. is social media