Conversely, while the research is good in theory, the data isn’t that reliable.
The subreddit has rules requiring users engage with everything as though it was written by real people in good faith. Users aren’t likely to point out a bot when the rules explicitly prevent them from doing that.
There wasn’t much of a good control either. The researchers were comparing themselves to the bots, so it could easily be that they themselves were less convincing, since they were acting outside of their area of expertise.
And that’s even before the whole ethical mess that is experimenting on people without their consent. Post-hoc consent is not informed consent, and that is the crux of human experimentation.
Conversely, while the research is good in theory, the data isn’t that reliable.
The subreddit has rules requiring users engage with everything as though it was written by real people in good faith. Users aren’t likely to point out a bot when the rules explicitly prevent them from doing that.
There wasn’t much of a good control either. The researchers were comparing themselves to the bots, so it could easily be that they themselves were less convincing, since they were acting outside of their area of expertise.
And that’s even before the whole ethical mess that is experimenting on people without their consent. Post-hoc consent is not informed consent, and that is the crux of human experimentation.
In fact one user commented that he had his comment calling out one of the bots as a bot deleted by mods for breaking that rule