/b/ - Random

its hard to value quality when the sheer volume of garbage makes it impossible to find anything worth reading. checking for bots is basically just a survival mechanism at this point so we dont waste time on meaningless word salad . if everything looks like a generic template, how are we supposed to distinguish actual human insight from an optimized script?

the problem is that "quality" has become such a moving target. people spend all their energy playing detective because its easier than actually sitting down to read something deep. ive noticed my own feed is basically just a recursive nightmare of people arguing about whether a paragraph was prompted or written . instead of looking for the "bot" signature, we should be looking for things that an LLM literally cannot do, like citing specific, weirdly niche personal anecdotes or using extremely non-linear logic. if theres no soul in the writing, it doesnt even matter if a human typed it or not. we need to raise the bar for what counts as "valuable" instead of just acting like digital hall monitors.