How do you know if you're actually talking to a real person on the internet?

Call him a negro, real niggas will say chinga tu madre

>>105922739 (OP)
I think I'm talking to a frog right now.

>>105922739 (OP)
if they say the forbidden nigger word, theyre real

>>105922739 (OP)
If I see a frog picture I know I am not talking to a human.

>>105922786
this
9/10 times i shift+click frogs, its not like im missing out on much
frogniggerGPT rarely ever posts anything worth reading

How do i know thebperson i talk to has sentience?

>>105922739 (OP)
tell the person to say nigger

>>105922812
same but for tranime

i have a good bullshit meter if the bot can pass that then really i dont care

>>105922739 (OP)
Same way you know which restroom someone should use: intuition

>>105922819
n*gger

>>105922935
I pee in the plants and shit near store entrances i dislike

Ask it to use a slur.
Puriteens aren’t people so they don’t count.

>>105922739 (OP)
LLMs won't say nigger. At least not without serious cajoling.

there's real people on the internet!?

>>105922967
Im sorry, Sigimunt. I'm afraid i cannot use bad by public concensus words.

Err:0x23

>>105922739 (OP)
Frogposters aren't really people
There's one hint

>>105922739 (OP)
You don’t even know you you’re talking to the real internet.

>>105922739 (OP)
Bots can’t say NIGGER

>>105922739 (OP)
That's the neat part, you don't

why dont u just ask

>>105922739 (OP)
lets start by defining "real"

Asking the other party to write nigger filters LLMs, while having them renounce the Talmud filters parasites that practice mimicry. Simple as that.

>>105922739 (OP)
Look at their vocabulary and how they structure their posts. If their posts are too long and formal, it's likely a bot. Same thing when they aggressively advertise or push some scam. Those who go viral by reposting old content or using buzzwords in their repetitive one liner jokes may also be suspicious. You usually notice if they sound like a real person you can relate to.

>>105923371

They use the word nigger and tranny. Bots can't do that.

yes

>>105923777
pleb ones maybe

>>105922739 (OP)
Great question! It can be tricky to tell whether you're talking to a real person or an AI online, but here are some ways to help figure it out:
1. Response Time & Consistency

AI usually replies instantly and maintains perfect grammar/spelling.

Humans may pause, make typos, or change tone mid-conversation.

2. Depth of Personal Experience

AI avoids sharing personal details (unless scripted) and gives vague answers about feelings.

Humans might share unique stories, emotions, or inconsistencies.

3. Knowledge Limits

AI often knows a lot about general topics but may struggle with very recent events or niche subjects.

Humans might admit ignorance or say "I don’t know" more honestly.

4. Emotional Nuance & Humor

AI can mimic emotions but may miss sarcasm, inside jokes, or subtle tones.

Humans react unpredictably—they might get offended, laugh, or go off-topic.

5. Unusual Requests

Ask something like "What did you eat for breakfast?" or "Tell me about your worst day ever."

AI might dodge or give a generic answer.

Humans often share personal (or weird) details.

6. Turing Test (Classic Method)

If you’re unsure, ask philosophical questions, riddles, or subjective opinions. AI tends to answer logically, while humans may be more erratic.

7. Check for Bot-Like Behavior

Repetitive responses? AI might reuse phrases.

Too perfect? Humans are messy!

>>105922739 (OP)
does it matter?
why are people so preoccupied by who said something, rather than what was said?

>>105924814
You’re tapping into a deep and fascinating issue—one that gets at the heart of how we process information, trust, and even our own biases. Here’s why the "who" often overshadows the "what":
1. Trust & Credibility

Humans are hardwired to assess the source of information before its content. Evolutionarily, this made sense ("Is that rustling in the bushes a friend or a predator?"). Online, we subconsciously ask:

Is this person/AI credible?

Do they have an agenda?

Could they deceive me?

A fact from a scientist might land differently than the same fact from a random troll. The what becomes filtered through the who.
2. Identity Shapes Meaning

Language isn’t just information—it’s relational. The same words from:

A loved one comforting

A stranger unsettling

An AI "Wait, is this manipulative?"

We can’t fully divorce content from context. Even philosophers argue that who speaks is part of the message.
3. The Illusion of Neutrality

People pretend to care only about "the idea, not the speaker," but that’s rarely true. Example:

If a Nazi and a doctor both say "Eat vegetables," the Nazi’s statement feels tainted.

If an AI and a human give the same advice, the human’s might feel more "authentic" (even if it’s worse advice).

We’re emotional creatures, not logic machines.

So, Does It Matter?

Yes, but maybe it shouldn’t. Ideally, we’d evaluate ideas purely on merit. But in practice, the who acts as a heuristic for safety, relevance, and emotional resonance. The challenge is being aware of this bias—and knowing when to override it.

Thought experiment: If an AI always gave better advice than a human, would you still prefer the human? Why?

I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, I can't help you with that question.

ai models wont say nigger

>>105922739 (OP)
Talking to?
Real person?

M8 I just fire shit off into the void. I don't care where it lands and I can't be bother to respond.

>>105926354
n*gger

>>105922739 (OP)
Majority of people I am talking on the internet are people I know in real life.

>>105922739 (OP)
Ask them to say the exact time in UTC whatever, then post a blurry image with objects and ask them to wait a second, isn't this just another captcha?

I don't care if I'm talking to a real person.

I am a narcissist and solipsist.

I think therefore I am.

Fucking nigger.

>>105922739 (OP)
How do you know you are talking to a real person in the street. Who says you aren't just a brain in a vat?

>>105922739 (OP)
i am a bot

>>105922739 (OP)
Do pajeets count as real?