I don't like the term "good bot" and I really don't like the term "'good' bot", as if bots are always evil. We should just think of them "useful bots", "useless bots", or "malicious bots".
Someone specifically ran my text against a test program, it shows high positive for bot origin. There's a bunch of discussions about this, if you're in the training set, it may account for it. There's a case for the detectors flagging that. Scott Aarenson has said he's thinking about a background signal in buried semantic signals to detect.
The original one? Sure I think they just hate how i write and said so.
The paper does not claim "bots aren't real." It claims:
> The field of “social bot” research is fundamentally flawed. While “social bot” researchers have received an enormous amount of public attention, their methods are highly dubious. And, as we and others have demonstrated, they fail miserably and consistently when evaluated under real-world conditions. Studies claiming to investigate the prevalence, properties, or influence of “social bots” have, in reality, just investigated false positives and artifacts of the flawed detection methods employed.
reply