AI Moderators. What do you think?
AI Moderators. What do you think?
Moderation is work. Trolls traumatize. Humans powertrip. All this could be resolved via AI.
35 comments
-
AI is extremely fallible and often makes mistakes, so no.
-
“Confidently Incorrect” describes terrible moderators and AI.
-
Oh nice phrase. Synonymous with smugnorant.
Wisdom and ignorance look alike in that there is a dearth of uncertainty.
-
-
removed by AI moderator
-
removed by AI moderator
-
removed by AI moderator
-
-
-
Ai moderation would lead to every comment being prompt injection
-
-
What if it worked 90%? It doesn't need to be perfect, just better.
I'd like to see an experiment.
-
Go look at YouTube, they are already doing it over there.
And it's horrible. Sometimes my comments are taken down automatically, but YouTube never tells me why, so I don't know what I need to change, and it's even hard to find out if my comments have been taken down. The fastest way is for me to write a comment and then wait 10 seconds and then try to edit it.
You're asking for something better but what's your baseline? What are you measuring? What's your metric? How would you know if it got better, and more importantly, how would we as a user base in general know if it got better?
-
The moderation impossibility theorem says that your idea will fail. Also, what do you think AI is? People are keen to say "AI", but they're incredibly tentative about providing any details.
More importantly, what problem do you think you're solving? We all agree that trolling and power tripping occur, but what specifically are you trying to address? I'm not sure you know, and this is really important.
-
It's absurd to give any amount of power over people, however trivial, to a thing which is incapable of thought.
-
Well giving that power to a human isn't so great either, clearly.
We already use text filters as a moderation bot. So we're just looking at improving the bot.
Maybe we're just looking for a way for the bot to recognize more complex patterns.
-
-
If you're referring to the data models we have now (as in, not AGI), it's a solid no for a whole host of reasons.
As it is, it is not intelligent. It is capable of structuring immense datasets and identifying patterns throughout said datasets, but it is incapable of comprehending them at a conceptual level. Even if it can mimic the verbal patterns of context, nuance, humour, sarcasm, irony and even coded speech, it is not capable of understanding any of them. It is not an intelligence as we know and understand it, it's just a really, really complex math equation.
As it is, all AI is still primarily run by a human consciousness. It cannot decide for itself what to do, it has to be pre-programmed. This means that any biases the human programming said AI might have will be transferred to the program itself given the immensity of data it is meant to process, so you're right back at human fallibility. At best, contemporary AI is to manual moderation what a chainsaw is to chopping down trees with an axe - just an implement to aid humans in doing exactly what they did before, but maybe faster. That's it.
-
AI is stupid
-
More "accurate" or otherwise, moderating is community engagement. We cultivate our communities by posting relevant content and removing what we find unacceptable. What are we doing if we are not doing both? Allowing a computer to sort the former and the latter? No thank you.
-
I've read about people being automatically banned by AI for saying something along the lines of "I hate burritos" because it had the word "hate" in it, so the AI judged their comment as hate speech and auto-banned them even though they were talking about food or a videogame character. AI is not very good at reading context and the "A" in "AI" is an important detail here.
-
-
Lol. Imagine being the last human. Living in a bunker. Facebooking with your "friends"
-
-
Yes, as soon as we actually invent AI.
The Large Language Models we have now aren't really it. When we have programs which can come to a well reasoned decision and actually explain the logic of said decision, then we'll start having something approaching AI. For now, it's just a well directed random number generator.
-
Aren't there already some automated mod tools working to delete CSAM and shit? That's a form of AI.
But all moderation problems you identify (work, biases) would not fully go away with AI moderation. Someone has to build and manage those tools (work) and train them on how to moderate (incorporating their biases as they do so).
-
I'm just curious how this would differ from automatic moderating tools we already have. I know moderating actually can be a traumatic job due to stuff like gore and CSEM, but we already have automatic filters in place for that stuff, and things still slip through the cracks. Can we train an AI to recognize it when it hasn't already been put into a filter? And if so, wouldn't it hit false positives and require an appeal system, which could still be used to traumatize people?
-
I could see it function very well as an aid in moderation but not any type of solution like most things with AI is today.
In the case of Lemmy and other defederated social media platforms there's going to be the usual cost hindrance and then the ethical side of it with excessive electricity usage and training data.
Disregarding that, as most know and everyone should know, AIs are not to be considered reliable or accurate ever. They will falsely flag and give false positives to potential comments and posts and images.
However, having an AI aggregate a list of potential bad comments and posts, then have a user manually checking the results, could help with moderation efficiency. Because how many users actually report comments and posts? How many do mods actually miss out on? There's a lot of content and limited time.
35 comments