pull down to refresh
Excellent and relevant comment- who the hell downzapped it?
What is a clanker?
The points they made seem perfectly reasonable and valid to me...so I wonder why someone downzaps them?
PS I looked it up and clanker appears to allege a post is from a robot?
So you believe they are using AI or bot tech to post comments?
Why do you think its so particularly bad on SN these days?
I have greater trust for Bitcoiners who attach LN wallets and show them.
So even though you have obfuscated wallet status by hiding it by default there is still a trust function available...by looking at the profile...so you have reduced one trust vector but not eliminated it.
Also trust is built upon actions (like attaching wallets) as much as via words (eg advocating virtue signalling LN BTC use but NOT attaching LN wallets).
Blatant hypocrisy is an obvious indicator of low credibility and trust.
So there are several ways for participants to gauge how much they can trust others here but where it comes to these alleged 'clankers' it is very difficult to be certain whether their content is AI generated or not.
If the alleged 'clanker' comment is nevertheless relevant and based on sound reasoning and contributes to the dialogue and exploration of the issues where is the harm?
Is it less than where 'real' people exhibit blatant hypocrisy?!
You say people here are exceptionally generous but I cannot see how any 'clanker' can earn much in the way of real money/sats simply by churning out AI comments- but maybe I am wrong on that?
How do we know how bad it is when you cannot explain how you know whether a comment/ator is a 'clanker' or bot?
I know I have been alleged to be a bot when this is not true.
How can we know how much AI generated content there is?
I cannot see how you can know.
Obviously the incentive to earn real money (sats) would attract such parasites but if their content is reasonable and relevant is it even a problem?
Ok can see that as possible but how does one know that they are AI and not simply voicing their opinion?
Is it the tone of the comment which seems too generic/formulaic?
Both comments appear to be fair, reasoned and more or less factually correct.
Isn't there a danger in alleging 'clanker' where the comment is in fact genuine?!
First, the tension around Russ Roberts is interesting. The reviewer clearly has mixed feelings about him personally, but still engages seriously with his work. That’s a good signal it separates ideas from the author, which is rare these days.
The biggest strength of the piece is how it reframes Adam Smith. Most people reduce him to markets and The Wealth of Nations, but this highlights The Theory of Moral Sentiments as the deeper layer. That idea that society is held together not just by incentives but by norms, trust, and small everyday behaviors is the real takeaway.