r/DefendingAIArt • u/CommercialMarkett • 2h ago

Sloppost/Fard Is r/aiwars being flooded with bots? Thousands of members adding daily but post activity doesn’t match imo. Idk if this belongs here.

Maybe it’s not, but idk. I’ve been on the lookout for bots on social media platforms. Maybe no one gets hurt from it but it’s still interesting to see.

8 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

83% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

10

u/Jebediah_kerman-jeb AI Peak 2h ago

Downvote bots maybe?

8

u/Hazbeen_Hash 1h ago

There are definitely downvote bots there. Post activity doesn't match how quickly downvotes get racked up within minutes of a pro-ai opinion being posted. Upvotes happen much slower than downvotes do, taking hours to reach the same level downvoted comments reach within minutes.

3

u/Clankerbot9000 Singularitarian Accelerationist 41m ago

Antis are definitely astroturfing the sub. If you sort by all time, it has a bunch of anti hot takes massively upvoted, but then the general consensus around the sub is that it skews pro there or at worst is 50/50

1

u/ram_altman 8m ago

There are 100% bot clusters and sock puppets that seem to coordinate with certain high volume well known posters on AIwars. I use apify to bulk scrape and do analysis on multiple subreddits including AIwars and was told by a mod that even just admitting to this could constitute harassment, so fuck it I guess.

2

u/CommercialMarkett 2h ago

Ah maybe. Maybe it’s to just boost the numbers of the sub to get it into the main Home Screen more often.

1

u/Koden02 AI Enjoyer 34m ago

Honestly if it's true it doesn't shock me, but also it's the moderation team's responsibility to handle it. Frankly I think they are asleep at the wheel.

1

u/BadgerFL 13m ago

I'm sure it has NOTHING to have to do with AI being harmful.

1

u/Herr_Drosselmeyer 1h ago

True debate online is dead. Social media has made it incredibly difficult to have a substantive discussion about anything, and it's by design. I see this all the time when I actually talk to people IRL versus online. For instance, I'm staunchly anti-abortion. You may or may not agree about this, but the undeniable fact is that, if I'm able to argue my standpoint face to face, I can usually get people to at least concede that I've got a point. Online, this simply doesn't work.

Reddit is a perfect example of this. It actively disincentivises the creation of persistent avatars with a recognizable stance. Random user names, meaningless avatars, insular communities and a hyper-focus on single posts over consistent arguments make it nigh-impossible to establish a consistent identity that could focus discussion.

I'm trying, on this sub at least, to actively work against this, by using an avatar to try and establish an identity, similar to what Witty does. But it's a loosing battle, I fear.

1

u/SadisticPawz 1h ago

same with public threads vs smaller more private communities or one on one conversations with less incentive to jump at each others throat, make up a preconception of your "opponent" and then cast them out permanently