Like other services where they have a help chatbot and if the bot can’t help you or the st needs to know you can use the form otherwise the st can help you.

Do you know how much CPU usage a bot at this level would take? And how much it would cost?
(Why does everyone want bots?)

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Do you know how much CPU usage a bot at this level would take? And how much it would cost?
(Why does everyone want bots?)

People lack interaction with real human beings, therefore often residing to bots. Some people has a perspective that a bot is much more reliable than an actual human support staff…

Actually, it will just be better if you type that by yourself, that more genuine that you actually admit your mistakes, rather than just botting. What if they wrote the same apology note, that wouldn't be so genuine if it was typed that way. Also scratch makes sure you're not a robot when logging in .

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

(Why does everyone want bots?)

There is a fad with AI right now

It's called "Contact US"

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Do you know how much CPU usage a bot at this level would take? And how much it would cost?
(Why does everyone want bots?)

Because it’s 2023 and people just can’t forget about chatGPT.

cs3868895 wrote:

Actually, it will just be better if you type that by yourself, that more genuine that you actually admit your mistakes, rather than just botting. What if they wrote the same apology note, that wouldn't be so genuine if it was typed that way. Also scratch makes sure you're not a robot when logging in .

???

It’s suggesting a robot to manage contact us requests

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

cs3868895 wrote:

Actually, it will just be better if you type that by yourself, that more genuine that you actually admit your mistakes, rather than just botting. What if they wrote the same apology note, that wouldn't be so genuine if it was typed that way. Also scratch makes sure you're not a robot when logging in .

???

It’s suggesting a robot to manage contact us requests

Ohhhhh……..
okay.

Contact US is for Contacting Scratch Team, not ChatGPT
No support.

cs3868895 wrote:

Actually, it will just be better if you type that by yourself, that more genuine that you actually admit your mistakes, rather than just botting. What if they wrote the same apology note, that wouldn't be so genuine if it was typed that way. Also scratch makes sure you're not a robot when logging in .

-OdysseyCentral- wrote:

Contact US is for Contacting Scratch Team, not ChatGPT
No support.

Yeah that is supposed to be managed by the scratch team themselves.
Why robot, maybe even leading into more false positives?

It's been a singular day since somebody suggested to add artificial intelligence onto the platform.

Like I said on other posts with the inclusion of robots and AI, it would be a big waste of resources, and there are already various other ways to get questions answered.

-OdysseyCentral- wrote:

Contact US is for Contacting Scratch Team, not ChatGPT

^ No support for this reason. It's pretty misleading to go to Contact Us to send a request to an ST member only to have a super long dialogue with a bot which never does what you want.

Nobody is suggesting any good uses for artificial intelligence here even though there are good uses

no support, false positives exist just like the filterbot

ajskateboarder wrote:

-OdysseyCentral- wrote:

Contact US is for Contacting Scratch Team, not ChatGPT

^ No support for this reason. It's pretty misleading to go to Contact Us to send a request to an ST member only to have a super long dialogue with a bot which never does what you want.

Not only that someone can decode the bot or get away by bypassing the bot. Which is probably ai ban evasion.

ALso from paddle2see from another topic that relates:

paddle2see wrote:

Please be aware that we don't have “moderation run by bots”. Projects that are reported excessively do get unshared for a period of time - and the author is blocked temporarily - but the projects are later reviewed by human moderators and restored if they are not inappropriate for Scratch. False reporting is an issue - but the system actually works quite well in many cases. However, the ones that get the publicity are the false report cases. We continue to explore better ways to tune the system.

The other paragraph does confirm why they don't do moderation on bots. (even tho it says there Volunteer, Bot will still concern two parts, quality control and legal liability. )

paddle2see wrote:

Volunteer moderation by the community is something we have experimented with in the past (in the forums). I don't think we will be trying it again because of concerns about age verification, quality control, and legal liability. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

cs3868895 wrote:

ALso from paddle2see from another topic that relates:

paddle2see wrote:

Please be aware that we don't have “moderation run by bots”. Projects that are reported excessively do get unshared for a period of time - and the author is blocked temporarily - but the projects are later reviewed by human moderators and restored if they are not inappropriate for Scratch. False reporting is an issue - but the system actually works quite well in many cases. However, the ones that get the publicity are the false report cases. We continue to explore better ways to tune the system.

The other paragraph does confirm why they don't do moderation on bots. (even tho it says there Volunteer, Bot will still concern two parts, quality control and legal liability. )

paddle2see wrote:

Volunteer moderation by the community is something we have experimented with in the past (in the forums). I don't think we will be trying it again because of concerns about age verification, quality control, and legal liability. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

Doesn't this mean that this suggestion has already been rejected?

wer65hertg wrote:

cs3868895 wrote:

ALso from paddle2see from another topic that relates:

paddle2see wrote:

Please be aware that we don't have “moderation run by bots”. Projects that are reported excessively do get unshared for a period of time - and the author is blocked temporarily - but the projects are later reviewed by human moderators and restored if they are not inappropriate for Scratch. False reporting is an issue - but the system actually works quite well in many cases. However, the ones that get the publicity are the false report cases. We continue to explore better ways to tune the system.

The other paragraph does confirm why they don't do moderation on bots. (even tho it says there Volunteer, Bot will still concern two parts, quality control and legal liability. )

paddle2see wrote:

Volunteer moderation by the community is something we have experimented with in the past (in the forums). I don't think we will be trying it again because of concerns about age verification, quality control, and legal liability. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

Doesn't this mean that this suggestion has already been rejected?

It may not be in Tolors but it seems that allowing bots to control may actually be rejected a long time ago. I haven't gotten confirmation just yet, this is just speculation.

Okay, I'm even more worried about this Chatbot thing now.

cs3868895 wrote:

It may not be in Tolors but it seems that allowing bots to control may actually be rejected a long time ago. I haven't gotten confirmation just yet, this is just speculation.

Yeah, it might just spit out random stuff or inaccurate stuff now. There's YouChat, which literally told me that the music blocks were in the sound category in Scratch 3.0 (it used to be but was moved to an extension in 3.0), as well as similar stuff.

Chatbots like ChatGPT may not be accurate. Unlike human contacting, it's more stable and accurate.