This has probably been the single most frequently requested feature until now. Here it is, accessible from your account settings (menu in the upper right):
Then he can go to the effort to say what it is about the picture that he likes, which should be accepted by the filter.
It's actually pretty easy to circumvent the filter. I tried posting "boing" on a picture (which I've never posted before) and of course the filter wouldn't accept it. So, I wrote "boing a doing a ding dong dang" and it accepted it. I deleted the post because I was just experimenting.
There is substance behind that comment beyond a "+1" because he doesn't say that on every +1 that he clicks. She's not just +1, she's worth taking the time to point out that she's stunning.
Then he can go to the effort to say what it is about the picture that he likes, which should be accepted by the filter.
This is working as intended. This is the kind of kind of comment that has no substance besides that you approve of the pic/woman... but we already have a "+1" button for that.
Anyway, I've made some tweaks to the filter to be more targeted towards exactly this sort of comment, and ideally have fewer false positives.
There is substance behind that comment beyond a "+1" because he doesn't say that on every +1 that he clicks. She's not just +1, she's worth taking the time to point out that she's stunning. I get not wanting to see comments like "boing" and "goddess" all the time, and not wanting derogatory comments, but what harm is there in emphasizing that you think a woman is stunningly beautiful? This is why I don't completely understand the point of this filter. It's like outlawing a pet peeve that is easy to just ignore. Censor the derogatory and disrespectful comments because they can hurt people, but if people want to sound off and they aren't being mean or disrespectful, why not let them sound off?
Also, I like to search comments for specific words sometimes and I'm afraid that this filter is going to seriously limit the usefulness of that feature.
In the end, it's your website and you can do whatever you want with it, but I thought, as a person who's been here for years, I'd give my two cents. I'll love your website and thank you for it either way.
This is working as intended. This is the kind of kind of comment that has no substance besides that you approve of the pic/woman... but we already have a "+1" button for that.
Anyway, I've made some tweaks to the filter to be more targeted towards exactly this sort of comment, and ideally have fewer false positives.
Are you sure that "Think she's from Ukraine" is exactly, word for word, what you said? Because I am trying to reproduce it, and that comment gets accepted. If you just said "she's from Ukraine" that would not be accepted.
That said, I do think the filter is due for some adjusting to make it less likely that the presence or absence of a single irrelevant word makes as much of a difference.
I'm not sure if "Think she's from Ukraine" is exactly what I posted, but it wasn't just "She's from Ukraine" because I genuinely don't know for sure where she's from. But I do know that I just extended the unaccepted sentence by a few words to say the exact same thing and it was accepted. I might've said "Isn't she Ukrainian?" I forget now. My memory sucks.
I replied to a comment about Irina Pimenova being from Russia. I said, "Think she's from Ukraine," and the comment filter wouldn't let me post that. Then I changed it to, "I think that she is from Ukraine, not Russia," and it accepted that.
Are you sure that "Think she's from Ukraine" is exactly, word for word, what you said? Because I am trying to reproduce it, and that comment gets accepted. If you just said "she's from Ukraine" that would not be accepted.
That said, I do think the filter is due for some adjusting to make it less likely that the presence or absence of a single irrelevant word makes as much of a difference.
I had a recent experience with the comment filter that I think is silly. I'm not a fan of this new feature, though I am 100 % behind people being more respectful toward the women featured on this site and the people (like me) who frequent it.
I replied to a comment about Irina Pimenova being from Russia. I said, "Think she's from Ukraine," and the comment filter wouldn't let me post that. Then I changed it to, "I think that she is from Ukraine, not Russia," and it accepted that.
Is it just because I lengthened the sentence? Does it filter out incomplete sentences or something, even though they convey the same information? I don't understand.
While this might be a stimulating discussion for a small handful of users, I might remind everyone that this is a website dedicated to girls with muscle, and as Chainer stated in the original post:
If you are trying to post a comment and the filter is stopping you, and you are really convinced the filter is wrong, post here with the content of your comment.
Unless you are reporting an issue with being able to make a comment under this new filter, then anything else seems to be off topic. There are any number of other sites and forums you could go to to discuss AI and whether it's sentient or not, or the ethics or it, or w/e.
Comments continuing this off topic discussion below this line will be deleted.
I'd wish you'd get back on topic - this thread is not about AI in the end. But Cres has some valid points and seems to know about the implications of AI in my opinion. You should do some more reading Zarklephaser.
Zarklephaser4 - Rather than all this offensive bull why don't you just say "I don't understand what you're talking about" instead of dressing it up as rambling nonsense? It would make your comments far more succinct, less idiotic and less nauseating...
"Are you trying to hypnotize people? Swinging a pocket watch, staring intently from under slanted eyebrows. "You will misperceive AI as conscious." A clear pause. "Then you will not be able to tell if it is conscious." Another pause, then continuing on a lighter tone. "You will think these bunny slippers are alive and willing to go for a walk without you. That has to be stopped. Now wake up!"
What kind of misunderstanding is this? Talk about delusional! You live in a fantasy world full of miscomprehensions and clunky, facile notions!
I disagree that AI won't become conscious. Initially we will (mis)perceive AI as conscious but as it becomes more sophisticated we won't be able to tell if it is conscious or not. Therefore, we'll probably, eventually feel compelled to legislate for this, however erroneous this concept may be. At least, initially erroneous. AI will probably result in a representation of consciousness, but eventually how will we be able to construe "artificial consciousness" from "organic consciousness"?
I'll take a definite improvement now over a slight chance at an improvement in the not-so-near future.
I'm not even sure the existence of the low-effort comments would be helpful to an ML model trained on the comments in some way, or if it would be pure noise, dominated by a relatively small number of users that doesn't generalize at all.
It's your site Chainer, you must do what you think will work best. Hopefully you wont exclude short comments with excellent search terms which will help with future searching, sorting or tagging like 'peak', 'split', 'vein' or whatever the specific thing is that people are into.
I am not an expert on using AI. I just like knowing about the philosophical and metaphysical side. In other words, what an AI is and what it is not, what it can do and what it can never do. It can never "become conscious" or "take over the world" or "program itself" or have "good will" or "evil intentions", like something or have a desire for something or "ensure" or "be concerned about" its survival.
I agree, and it's something that always bugs me about this myth about AI. Hollywood does nothing to help this perception about computers coming to "life".
Log in |
Register
Finally. Thank you!!
This has probably been the single most frequently requested feature until now. Here it is, accessible from your account settings (menu in the upper right):
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/users/model_s...
It's actually pretty easy to circumvent the filter. I tried posting "boing" on a picture (which I've never posted before) and of course the filter wouldn't accept it. So, I wrote "boing a doing a ding dong dang" and it accepted it. I deleted the post because I was just experimenting.
Then he can go to the effort to say what it is about the picture that he likes, which should be accepted by the filter.
If I got it right, you should be able to post compliments if you reference something about the pic itself.
In other words, my intent is to not have generic posts that would work equally well on every single picture on the site.
There is substance behind that comment beyond a "+1" because he doesn't say that on every +1 that he clicks. She's not just +1, she's worth taking the time to point out that she's stunning. I get not wanting to see comments like "boing" and "goddess" all the time, and not wanting derogatory comments, but what harm is there in emphasizing that you think a woman is stunningly beautiful? This is why I don't completely understand the point of this filter. It's like outlawing a pet peeve that is easy to just ignore. Censor the derogatory and disrespectful comments because they can hurt people, but if people want to sound off and they aren't being mean or disrespectful, why not let them sound off?
Also, I like to search comments for specific words sometimes and I'm afraid that this filter is going to seriously limit the usefulness of that feature.
In the end, it's your website and you can do whatever you want with it, but I thought, as a person who's been here for years, I'd give my two cents. I'll love your website and thank you for it either way.
So then, no more compliments? +1 is nothing but an impersonal tick.
This is working as intended. This is the kind of kind of comment that has no substance besides that you approve of the pic/woman... but we already have a "+1" button for that.
Anyway, I've made some tweaks to the filter to be more targeted towards exactly this sort of comment, and ideally have fewer false positives.
I typed “she is a stunningly beautiful woman “, and it was rejected
I'm not sure if "Think she's from Ukraine" is exactly what I posted, but it wasn't just "She's from Ukraine" because I genuinely don't know for sure where she's from. But I do know that I just extended the unaccepted sentence by a few words to say the exact same thing and it was accepted. I might've said "Isn't she Ukrainian?" I forget now. My memory sucks.
Why wouldn't "shes from Ukraine" be accepted? How is that a low effort comment? This seems to be getting ridiculous!
Are you sure that "Think she's from Ukraine" is exactly, word for word, what you said? Because I am trying to reproduce it, and that comment gets accepted. If you just said "she's from Ukraine" that would not be accepted.
That said, I do think the filter is due for some adjusting to make it less likely that the presence or absence of a single irrelevant word makes as much of a difference.
I think those are good questions, and they might very well be part of a bug, or at least based on what I was told about how the filter works.
Chainer would have to answer that though.
I had a recent experience with the comment filter that I think is silly. I'm not a fan of this new feature, though I am 100 % behind people being more respectful toward the women featured on this site and the people (like me) who frequent it.
I replied to a comment about Irina Pimenova being from Russia. I said, "Think she's from Ukraine," and the comment filter wouldn't let me post that. Then I changed it to, "I think that she is from Ukraine, not Russia," and it accepted that.
Is it just because I lengthened the sentence? Does it filter out incomplete sentences or something, even though they convey the same information? I don't understand.
While this might be a stimulating discussion for a small handful of users, I might remind everyone that this is a website dedicated to girls with muscle, and as Chainer stated in the original post:
Unless you are reporting an issue with being able to make a comment under this new filter, then anything else seems to be off topic. There are any number of other sites and forums you could go to to discuss AI and whether it's sentient or not, or the ethics or it, or w/e.
Comments continuing this off topic discussion below this line will be deleted.
I'd wish you'd get back on topic - this thread is not about AI in the end. But Cres has some valid points and seems to know about the implications of AI in my opinion. You should do some more reading Zarklephaser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_on_...
But I do understand everything.
Zarklephaser4 - Rather than all this offensive bull why don't you just say "I don't understand what you're talking about" instead of dressing it up as rambling nonsense? It would make your comments far more succinct, less idiotic and less nauseating...
"Are you trying to hypnotize people? Swinging a pocket watch, staring intently from under slanted eyebrows. "You will misperceive AI as conscious." A clear pause. "Then you will not be able to tell if it is conscious." Another pause, then continuing on a lighter tone. "You will think these bunny slippers are alive and willing to go for a walk without you. That has to be stopped. Now wake up!"
What kind of misunderstanding is this? Talk about delusional! You live in a fantasy world full of miscomprehensions and clunky, facile notions!
Or are we perhaps even being seduced?
So are we fooling ourselves or not?
I disagree that AI won't become conscious. Initially we will (mis)perceive AI as conscious but as it becomes more sophisticated we won't be able to tell if it is conscious or not. Therefore, we'll probably, eventually feel compelled to legislate for this, however erroneous this concept may be. At least, initially erroneous. AI will probably result in a representation of consciousness, but eventually how will we be able to construe "artificial consciousness" from "organic consciousness"?
It's your site Chainer, you must do what you think will work best. Hopefully you wont exclude short comments with excellent search terms which will help with future searching, sorting or tagging like 'peak', 'split', 'vein' or whatever the specific thing is that people are into.
I agree, and it's something that always bugs me about this myth about AI. Hollywood does nothing to help this perception about computers coming to "life".