How do you all feel about bots?

I’ve seen a gpt powered summarization bot pop up recently. Do you find this useful? Do you hate this?

Do you think bots serve any useful purposes on this website or do you think we should ban all bots? Should we have a set of rules for how bots should interact - only when called, needing to explicitly call out they are a bot on their profile, etc?

I’d love to hear your thoughts

  • Lionir [he/him]@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    2 years ago

    Personally - I think any bot that could be straight Lemmy functionality shouldn’t exist but that said, I think good ground rules would be :

    • Bots should be clearly prompted by a command
    • Bots should not act in a community without mods from that community being contacted first
    • Bots should minimize the space they take with their messages (Example: Info on how to contact its creator should be in the bot bio rather than in every message)
    • Bots should say who made/hosts it
    • TehPers@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      These rules seem great honestly. The main bot that comes to mind is the TL;DR bot, which one could easily prompt for in a post if they want a TL;DR, if those communities want to enable it for that specific community. Eventually, a list of promptable bots could pop up in one of the instances so that people know which bots are available to be prompted. Alternatively, someone could make a website to list them or something. I can see there being a healthy bot ecosystem forming based on people’s needs.

      Since we have more control over the source code, I think eventually what would be nice are community plugins to replace some of the functionality of these bots. For example, a plugin could de-AMP a link, or could provide a banner indicating the rules on a post. If someone really wanted to, they could make a plugin to auto-generate summaries of articles too and include it somewhere in the UI. Since these rules are for Beehaw specifically, I don’t think bots which create new posts are that relevant, since there aren’t really any niche-specific communities (like a bot which posts changelogs for a game or something), just broad communities.

      Any bots not clearly labelled as bots should be given a warning, then banned from the instance in my opinion. The bot setting exists for a reason, bypassing it indicates that the bot author is not willing to respect the rules of the communities the bot is posting in.

  • Melody Fwygon@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 years ago

    Please keep the bots to a minimum.

    Approved bots that the admins manually review the use cases for is absolutely fine.

    I just don’t want things to revert back to reddit days where I’m constantly BLOCKING new novelty bots that are absolutely freaking useless and add nothing to a conversation.

    Also; PLEASE; implement the following ideas into a(n) agreement/covenant for bot operators; I quote this directly from the Tao of IRC:

    The master Nap then said: “Any automata should not speak unless spoken to. Any automata shall only whisper when spoken to.”

    • the_itsb (she/her)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      The grammar bots were so annoying! I love good grammar as much as anyone, but really, what help are we actually adding to the world with the they’re/their/there bots, the your/you’re bots, the payed/paid bots, etc. I really can’t imagine those changed anyone’s behavior or spelling.

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’m not completely against those, they sometimes made me edit a comment, and can be educational to both native speakers and those learning the language.

        However, it’s not nice to force them upon people, it should be each user’s choice whether they want those tips or not, so I’d say: maybe, but not for Beehaw (unless maybe for some “learn-[some_language]” community).

  • SomeGuyNamedPaul@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 years ago

    98% of bots are crap. The problem is that people have different opinions as to which 98% of them is the crap portion.

    Absolutely any bot needs to self-identify.

  • Rentlar@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Comment bots are mostly fine so long as they are clearly labelled, don’t take up unnecessary amounts of space, have clear purpose and add value to an article or discussion. So stuff like TLDR, Piped, Wiki bots are fine. Stuff like GROND, GPT (even though it’s cool we have a Masto feature that does that), Anakin, Musk bots aren’t useful here imo.

    Post bots, I’m kind of on the side of I’d rather not see them, I like talking about articles with the user who posted it. I won’t be too upset if they end up allowed, though. A whitelist, or a strictly enforced guideline would be acceptable for me.

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      The TLDR bot has now been disabled as per the decision of Beehaw. Contact your favorite community mods if you’d like to change that.

      • Rentlar@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Thanks, but “I’m fine with it” doesn’t necessarily mean I would miss it if it’s gone.

  • emma@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    Is anyone checking the AI “summariser” bot for accuracy? I’d rather not get misleading ideas in my head from a poor summary.

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      The bot has now been disabled as per the decision of Beehaw. Contact your favorite community mods if you’d like to change that.

      To answer your question, yes, I am checking it for accuracy as I’m the author and I’d like it to be as useful as it can be. I’d say its summary is really helpful in 90+% of cases, the rest could be better and only once I’ve seen it post a summary that wasn’t helpful at all.

    • madkarlsson@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Is someone checking human summarizers as well? I mean, humans make mistakes but also generally adds flavours, and can focus on things due to inherent bias. In fact, this is actually an area were bots can probably produce more factually correct and unbiased summaries than humans (depends on the quality of course).

      The way past both is to actually read the article?

      • emma@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Erm, well, yes. That should happen too. Tends to in a good community with a range of views.

        I asked a single question on a single facet of the current internet. For my own information, because I’ve found reading a range of articles about Chat GPT useful for understanding and beginning to form my own opinion on them. And rather than add any helpful information, you’ve gone down this tangent? 🤷‍♂️

        Your “In fact” rebuttal, not needed btw, is technically true. I’m more interested in the current actual state of things with a particular bot, not a hypothetical.

        Human-written posts differ in tone from the summary-bot. The bot “writes” more in the tone of an article, which tends to mean a tone of authority. That affects how the “facts” resurface in my memory. Maybe it works differently for the bright young things who’ve grown up with the internet. IDK 🤷‍♂️

        Of course reading the articles is important. I don’t have the spoons to read every article I come across though. I know I don’t have much of a life, but still 😂 Scanning comments is a bit more like human interaction and I find that helpful in deciding whether or not to click through to the article.

        And before anyone jumps in with “Then the summary bot will be really helpful to you”, please note that my question was about the accuracy of the bot and if anyone was gathering information. I will make my own observations over time but would also like to learn from others’.

  • potterman28wxcv@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    I dislike content that has been auto-posted by bots. I treat it like spam instead of genuine content.

    I would love to see a “bot” flag and a parameter on your profile to not show any “bot” content.

    I guess people who make bots are scared that the Lemmy platforms would eventually stop seeing activity because of a lack of content. But I think that if there were little to no activity, perhaps people would be posting more. I doubt that flooding the platform with auto-generated content or auto-forwarded content actually helps with encouraging people to stay.

    • cnnrduncan@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      IIRC there is already a bot flag on profiles, though it relies on bot-makers manually setting it and as far as I’m aware you can’t automatically block all bot users (though I haven’t tried every single Lemmy app).

  • TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I think bots can have a place, but I prefer ones that have to be intentionally invoked. I’m thinking of ones like MTGCardFetcher on the Magic the Gathering subreddit, which would post links to the card on Scryfall if you formatted the card name in double brackets in your comment.

    • brie@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      In my opinion, such bots indicate more of a need for some kind of easy “pipe” feature to integrate tools to transform a post before publishing, so that all of the tweaks can be done within the post instead of as a bot reply. For example, there could be a “MTG-ify” button that takes the text in the input box, turns the double bracketed names into CommonMark links, and then puts the modified text back into the input box.

      • TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah I don’t disagree at all that it would be ideal if some of this kind of functionality could be built into the platform, but obviously that didn’t really happen at Reddit - which is why there were so many similar bots to allow subreddits to create extended functionality - and Lemmy is still new enough that contributors are still trying to fix major issues and get basic functionality working properly. In the meantime bots could fill some gaps, although I lean toward using them very sparingly.

  • Poke@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 years ago

    I like summary bots, summoned bots that serve a purpose, and meme bots if they stay in specific communities where they are expected to be. All bots should self identify.

    I could be mistaken but doesn’t Lemmy just have a setting for the user to not see bot posts?

    I also figure users can block specific bots if they don’t like them.

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      The summary bot has now been disabled as per the decision of Beehaw. Contact your favorite community mods if you’d like to change that.

      • averyminya@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        Disappointing. There’s a number of reasonable bots and auto-tl;dr can be extremely useful for avoiding tracking and shady sites.

  • cnnrduncan@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    Honestly the only bot I’ve actually found myself missing is the metric/imperial conversion one, makes talking with Americans a lot easier!

  • MollTheCoder@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    Honestly, as a programmer, I’d like the freedom to share bots that can benefit the community. Although, I do think that there should be measures in place to ensure bots don’t degrade the quality of the community.

  • EremesZorn@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    While I understand the use cases of bots that provide some sort of utility or post helpful information, I lean towards having no bots. Reddit was festering with bots of all stripes - mostly memes - and it was kind of unbearable.
    I personally long for a community that features strictly human-to-human conversation and interaction.
    I’m aware that this opinion will likely be in the minority, given how tech-centric the fediverse in general is, but that’s my thought on the matter.

  • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    Bots like gramma and spelling bots should just gtfo. Every bot should be a genuine postitive improvement to a community or otherwise they shouldn’t exist.

    • itsgallus@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Realistically, spell-checking should happen at the comment authoring stage anyway. Given I don’t know how the Lemmy code works at all, I imagine checking for “they’re/their”, “would of/could of” &c. could be an optional UI feature rather than a bot.

      • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I think a lot of how I interpret them is how they are written. On Reddit there’s a lot of GOTCHA style bots which insult the user for not knowing “perfect” grammar. However, I’ve seen some bots which actually try to explain and help out the user and couch their language in a way where it’s clearly meant to be helpful, especially to English as a second language learners, and I think there’s a huge gulf of acceptability between the two.

  • star_nova@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    One of the things I like about Beehaw is the lack of bot posts in every thread. Personally I think all bots should be banned because it eliminates some unwanted spam, but a good compromise for me is that bots be explicitly labeled, and can only respond to a trigger command. Nothing that auto posts.

    • Dave@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      If you think all bots should be banned, then good news! On Lemmy, bot accounts are (should be) labeled as a bot, and in your profile settings you can disable seeing posts by bots.

      • star_nova@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        That’s a very good setting. Thanks! My only other concern is unlabeled bot accounts but I don’t know if that’s a rampant issue or not.

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yes, I think it’s important to have a “bots must be marked as bots” rule.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Second this, for Beehaw.

      Users can already follow any community from another instance with autoposting bots. With the right interface, users can even merge posts from no-bot and yes-bot communities to create their own customized experience.

  • GeneralRetreat@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Bots can be extremely useful and the flexibility of where and how bots could work was one of the things that made Reddit popular. Before, well, y’know.

    Bespoke bots can also allow particular communities to develop local features or functionality. I assume Lemmy’s mod tools are fair bare bones right now too, so I suspect someone, somewhere is probably working on an automod toolkit.

    Bots should be allowed, but must be flagged. I don’t know if it’s a default lemmy option, but the app I use has a toggle to hide bot accounts if you don’t want to see them.

    That said, I would very much prefer if bots were restricted to just making comments rather than posts. Certain communities have bots that automatically post article links and they completely blanket feeds sorted by new until you block the account.

    • weremacaque@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’ve started an account on Mastodon recently, and really noticed the bot accounts. If you accidentally follow one of the extremely active bots, all your feed becomes their posts. I don’t think there’s enough people on the Fediverse just yet to be able to drown those bots out when they show up.