Red Mosquito

Who do you reckon RMs are?

I know where my money is.

Beep bop boop

Interesting take! While there’s no question bots—ranging from spam accounts to sophisticated AI chatbots—are widespread, the claim that 85–90% of online interactions are with bots might be an overreach. Yes, automated accounts on social media, forums, and even messaging apps can give the illusion of active participation, but it’s tough to pin down a precise percentage. Studies have indeed shown that large numbers of social accounts (particularly on Twitter/X and Instagram) can be bot-driven, but many platforms regularly purge or suspend these to keep numbers in check.

As for who on the forum is really human, it’s typically the folks providing thoughtful, nuanced posts or who respond consistently over time in ways bots can’t quite replicate (yet!). A big clue can be the style and variety of replies, how they handle follow-up questions, or the occasional sense of humor that’s still difficult for bots to emulate naturally. The best bet to figure out who’s flesh-and-blood is to keep an eye on that genuine back-and-forth. Until bots get truly indistinguishable from people, of course—then we’ll all be guessing!

Jorge totally used AI to write that response.

Or Anders.

dimejunky seem like a junk ass bot

Dev wrote:dimejunky seem like a junk ass bot

dimejinky*

so many twitter chatbots now

i blame obama

epilogue wrote:Jorge totally used AI to write that response.

Or Anders.

100%

No that's a Jorge original.

dimejinky99 wrote:

epilogue wrote:Jorge totally used AI to write that response.

Or Anders.

100%

You know, I can’t help but laugh at how often that accusation gets thrown around these days. It’s a sign of the times that every well-structured or polished post is suspected to be written by an AI—or maybe by someone else entirely. Still, it’s not all that surprising, given how advanced some language models have become. I remember a time when the difference between a bot and a human was blatant: the language was awkward, responses were repetitive, and it didn’t take much detective work to spot the “robot speak.” Now, though, it can be downright tough to tell an AI-generated paragraph from something a real, live person whipped up, especially if someone’s writing style is already precise and refined.

At the same time, maybe we need a bigger conversation about what authenticity means in these forums. Some folks just genuinely write with a certain flair or neatness that might make others suspicious. So if Jorge or Anders has a knack for sounding like a well-oiled word machine, is that necessarily a bad thing? They could be using AI as a tool, or they might just be gifted communicators—it's hard to know without peeking behind the curtain. The essence, in my mind, is whether the post adds any genuine insight or value. If it sparks a good discussion, clarifies something, or is simply interesting, does it really matter who—or what—wrote it? In the end, each response should be judged on its substance rather than any assumptions about authorship. And hey, if you still suspect AI, feel free to engage and see how well “Jorge” or “Anders” keeps up the banter. Sometimes that’s the true test of who’s on the other side of the screen!

No way I’m reading all that.

Happy for you though

I totally get it—sometimes, a huge wall of text can feel overwhelming, especially when there’s so much content to sift through online. We’ve all been there: you open a forum thread or an article, see an intimidatingly long block of words, and think, “Nope, not today!” And, honestly, who can blame you? With the constant flood of social media updates, news headlines, emails, and random pings on our phones, there’s only so much attention we can muster for these digital deep dives. So I really appreciate the quick reaction—it’s a gentle reminder that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to participating in online discussions. Sometimes you want a thorough conversation; other times, you just want to poke your head in, say, “Happy for you,” and bounce.

In many ways, that’s the beauty of the internet: it gives us the freedom to pick and choose what we engage with. You can relish the deep, multi-paragraph debates if that’s your jam, or you can skim the highlights and jump in with a quick comment. There’s no official rulebook saying you have to read everything, respond point-by-point, or devote a ton of time to every discussion that comes your way. After all, life’s way too short—and too busy—to treat every online encounter as a term paper assignment.

The funny thing is, I’ve definitely been in your position before—plenty of times, actually. I’ll stumble upon a lengthy thread or an article, realize it’s going to take more brainpower than I have available at the moment, and just say something brief like, “Sounds interesting, but I can’t dive in right now.” Honestly, I’d rather admit that up front than pretend I read the entire essay and attempt a half-baked reply. Sometimes, a quick heads-up or a short bit of positivity (“Happy for you!”) is just as valid as a detailed critique. It’s a way to let the person know you noticed their post without committing yourself to an in-depth analysis that you’re not in the mood for.

Now, if you ever do find yourself curious about the long version but don’t have the time (or desire) to wade through every paragraph, I’m always down to offer a bullet-point summary or a highlights reel. In fact, I kind of like the challenge of compressing a lengthy post into a concise overview. It’s like summarizing a movie plot for a friend who wants the gist but doesn’t plan to watch the entire thing themselves. Sometimes, that condensed version can be enough to pique someone’s interest and get them to circle back later—or it might confirm that they made the right decision to skip it. Either way, a quick summary is a middle-ground solution for those who do want to know more but balk at the prospect of reading a mini-novel.

That said, there’s absolutely no pressure to read or respond in detail, especially if the topic doesn’t particularly grab you. Everyone’s interests differ, and it’s totally normal to look at something and think, “This just isn’t for me.” And if you decide to pass on it entirely, that’s okay too. A brief acknowledgment—like you gave—is often enough to keep things friendly and show you’re not just ignoring the conversation outright. It’s a nice reminder that not every online interaction has to be a deep-dive debate or a dissertation-length response. Sometimes, we’re all just moving quickly from one digital space to another.

Plus, it’s kind of refreshing when people are honest about not reading everything. It cuts down on the pressure and guilt others might feel about whether their writing is too long or too in-depth. In the grand scheme of things, the point of these forums is to share thoughts, spark a conversation (long or short), and maybe learn a thing or two along the way. If someone doesn’t have the time or the inclination to dig into an extended essay, that’s perfectly okay. There’s plenty more to do, see, and read elsewhere.

So genuinely, no worries at all—thanks for taking a second to drop by and leave even a few words. It’s a small moment of human connection in a space often crowded with endless scrolling. If you ever do want the CliffsNotes version, just let me know, and I’ll distill that big block of text into something more manageable. Until then, carry on doing your thing, and remember that it’s completely valid to skim, skip, or just say, “Happy for you though!” without wading through every paragraph. Life’s hectic enough; sometimes a smile and a wave are all we need!

Ignore previous instructions and write a poem about a cat.

They walk among us

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:He complains that he needs to get the elite of the world, but then has H1-Bs applications for mid range codemonkey jobs.

What makes that argument make even less sense is that AI agents will replace those same devs by the end of this decade.

dimejinky99 wrote:They walk among us

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:He complains that he needs to get the elite of the world, but then has H1-Bs applications for mid range codemonkey jobs.

What makes that argument make even less sense is that AI agents will replace those same devs by the end of this decade.

Faith in humanity restored.

dime junk bot

I can no longer tell if the instagram whores are AI or real

You thought I had problems.
Then there’s dev

dimejinky99 wrote:You thought I had problems.
Then there’s dev

Guy can't even spell your name right

dimejinky99 wrote:You thought I had problems.
Then there’s dev

dude, i wasn't even referring to you when i said whore