Some faith in TUSCL reviewers restored

21 comments

• 59

  •

  14 days ago

  It took all of about 5 seconds to reject.
• shailynn

  •

  14 days ago

  This is what PLs do after they’ve already masturbated 6 times, saved the princess in Legend of Zelda and had their Taco Bell for dinner. They still have an hour before lights out from mom and dad!
• Puddy Tat

  •

  14 days ago

  ^ Not sure why the micropenile hostility over something that doesn't concern you.
• mogul1985

  •

  14 days ago

  Randomly posting an AI occasional review to test the Adjudicator is a good idea. I wonder how many are generated?
• Harderlap

  •

  14 days ago

  AI generated text has a certain sterility to it. When I read a review that starts with generalities and never gets into specifics, reads like an encyclopedia, written in third person, and sounds it was written by someone who never visited the club, or any other clubs for that matter, I run it through an AI text detector and accept or reject based on that.
  
  I suppose it is just a matter of time before some one develops an AI app to “deAI” AI generated text.
• Puddy Tat

  •

  14 days ago

  @59 and @HarderLap, good on both of you.
  
  AI might do some things decently well, but its club reviews are shit. They sound like bad Yelp reviews, referencing "adult entertainment," go into vague details on the club layout and furniture, are allergic to numbers, and never a dancer name nor the characteristics of dances and mileage.
• Manuellabore

  •

  14 days ago

  Didn’t adjudicate this, but I rely on my internal AI detector. AI generated reviews are invariably otherwise deficient
• whodey

  •

  14 days ago

  So you attempted to undermine the credibility of this site by posting a fake AI generated review? And you plan to do it again?
  
  Maybe @founder should ban you for that.
• Puddy Tat

  •

  14 days ago

  ^ Or you completely missed the point.
• whodey

  •

  14 days ago

  I get the point about people approving bs AI reviews, but adding more bs AI reviews is not the answer.
  
  Founder should ban anyone that submits AI reviews, even members doing it to try to prove a point.
• twentyfive

  •

  14 days ago

  ^ 👍
• Puddy Tat

  •

  14 days ago

  ^ OK you two, go to Founder and try to get me banned if you have such a weed up your asses about it.
• twentyfive

  •

  14 days ago

  I don’t want to get you or anyone else banned, but whodey does have a point. Touch grass before you speak.
• Puddy Tat

  •

  14 days ago

  ^ I get your point but I didn't think this--which I said on another thread I'd do and was actually encouraged to do--would generate such drama queendom.
• twentyfive

  •

  14 days ago

  There you go with your smugness because I agree he has a point I’m a drama queen please stop being a child.
• Puddy Tat

  •

  14 days ago

  ^ Many people are being overdramatic on this thread, like I violated some sacrosanct law and deserve to be burned at the stake for it.
  
  Actually you in particular don't seem to get along with anyone here.
• twentyfive

  •

  14 days ago

  ^ you’re right you’re a whiny little baby
• Puddy Tat

  •

  14 days ago

  ^ Not getting off your lawn, gramps ;)
• sfrsox

  •

  14 days ago

  Yup, numbers (and them being correct) is what mainly distinguishes a real review fro ma fake review.
• Icey

  •

  13 days ago

  I don't trust the reviews. There are too many fake ones. Ones for clubs that are closed. You can only read about a club layout so many times....
• Call.Me.Ishmael

  •

  13 days ago

  If you submit the same review at a different time it could easily sail through based on which reviewers are "on shift" at that time.