5 ms·
If your comment is so banal as to trip this filter then maybe you haven't actually contributed anything to the discussion anyway, so what is the loss? I don't
by evgen 8y ago
If your comment is so banal as to trip this filter then maybe you haven't actually contributed anything to the discussion anyway, so what is the loss? I don't mean this to be as glib as it might sound, but as the old saying goes, 'opinions are like assholes, everyone has one' and if your proposed addition to the discussion is indistinguishable from auto-generated text there is little lost by removing it.
- userbinator 8y agoJust like with spam filters, the problem isn't when they work; it's the false positives that are really the concern, and what I've seen with all the machine-learning stuff these days is that they tend to fail in mysterious ways.
- xkcd-sucks 8y agoI think the implication is either that 1) The people running the filter are saying that in bad faith, they have actually trained it to catch "Bad Ideas" instead of autogenerated text 2) Training a GAN to mimic your political opponents and spamming sites so the bad political opinions themselves become heuristics of spam
- evgen 8y agoIn the referenced paper the trigger for the filter is lack of novelty, not any specific content. In neither of the cases you present would you be able to demonstrate that a filter like this could be operated in way to discriminate on content rather than on novelty other than by shifting the corpus in a manner that would be obvious to everyone.