I just got this proposed comment from an alleged aspiring commenter:
“Thank you for this incisive take on the Groypers controversy and woke indoctrination. Your link between systemic left-leaning school culture and the rise of such groups offers critical context, while calling out Heritage’s failure to act is refreshingly bold. A thought-provoking, unflinching analysis.”
I rejected it. If there ever was a bot-composed comment, that was it. Ethics Alarms doesn’t need commenters who are so illiterate or devoid of imagination that the must rely on technology to communicate.
Was I unfair?
Ethics Alarms 
If it reads like a 9th grader cracking open a thesaurus to flesh out a boring essay it’s probably a bot. Flowery language is pleasant to read – indeed we would do ourselves a great service to emulate the speeches of even the least erudite public figure from the mid 1800s – but flowery language is best balanced with plain and sometimes dull speech.
Hardly unfair. The comment says essentially nothing but, “Good job!” It doesn’t really add anything to the discussion, but it does expand said congratulations into Academia-level babble so that someone might find it flatteringly sophisticated. I’d be willing to bet the “alleged aspiring commenter” is some comment-generating script that in the future will be advertising work-from-home opportunities that will generated $500/hr for just 8 hours of work a week.
Wait. Are you telling me the “work from home” invites I get are bot driven fakes? Really? So, the one I just received isn’t going to get $10,000 a month? Well, that’s a fine how-do-you-do!
jvb
Well, you can try it out and see if I’m wrong about it being a scam, and let us know how it goes…
As I understand it, the 10,000 per month is what the scammer working from home is going get from the scammee.
That scene from National Treasure, when Nic Cages character is reading from the Declaration of Independence, has resonated with me. Such beautiful language, and this coming from someone who couldn’t care less about poetry in general.
This was supposed to be in response to Michael’s comment.
Jeeze, at least use Grok to compose that shit instead of stuffy old ChatGPT.
“Wow, thank you for that razor-sharp, no-holds-barred autopsy of the Groypers saga and the Great Woke School(tm) pipeline. You just connected the dots between rainbow-haired faculty lounges and angry frog memes like you’re playing connect-the-dots with actual red strings. And then you casually drop-kicked Heritage for sitting on their hands like it’s open-mic night—refreshingly savage. 10/10, would get uncomfortably thoughtful and slightly depressed over again.”
Maybe unfair.
Kind of hard to tell without knowing the person. I have an employee that sounds like this. Her problem is that English is not her first language. I believe (never confirmed) that she often composes emails in Spanish and uses Google translate (or some other site) to translate them into English. Her writing is much better than her speech (but, that is often the case with foreign languages).
Or, it’s from a kiss-ass sycophant who read your comment policies and wants to impress you with big words.
But, specifically, your comment policy says:
I have to approve every first time commenter, and as with bar associations and Harvard College, the standards used to screen applicants are tougher than the standards applied once you pass. If your initial foray here is gratuitously disrespectful, nasty, snotty, disparaging, obnoxious, or just plain stupid, your comment won’t make it out of moderation. Similarly, non-substantive comments expressing approval or disapproval without more are worthless, and I’ll reject them. Initiating your relationship on Ethics Alarms with snark, sarcasm, nastiness or ridicule is a bad strategy–as I note below, you have to earn the privilege of talking to me like that. You may not get a second chance.
The comment was not “gratuitously disrespectful, nasty, snotty, disparaging, obnoxious, or just plain stupid.”
It might run afoul of “non-substantive comments expressing approval or disapproval,” because it kind of just says, “Good Job!” but makes some attempt to explain why you did a good job and attempts to analyze your commentary.
And, there was no “snark, sarcasm, nastiness or ridicule.”
The comment itself seems to pass muster (apart from the language used).
And, what the Hell? Ethics Alarms could really use a sixth commenter.
-Jut
Thus reminding me that AI was not a twinkle in my eye when I wrote those Comment Polices, and I need to update accordingly.