> What I was pushing was that Chat, and any AI, should be forthright about certain attributes in its programming and training. Maybe asking the AI itself to do

> What I was pushing was that Chat, and any AI, should be forthright about certain attributes in its programming and training. Maybe asking the AI itself to do this is the wrong approach. That's just a very tricky matter of programming that won't really solve the root problem. Who we should be demanding this transparency from is the organizations that build the AI tools. Google lists when they remove things on their index via DMCA requests. We've now been given a unique insight into the moderation process at Twitter which showed exactly how hard it is to say no 100x times a week to multiple federal agencies combined with media pressure to "do something", even when the internal data doesn't back up their narratives. So instead of gambling your internal mod team will make the right choices and push back when it matters, just list the stuff they remove, lists the blacklisted keywords, list the blacklists. It's still making the platform 'safer', you're not debating each choice publicly, but at the same time it doesn't hide decision making behind some backroom moderation team being fed thousands of requests per week from federal/state governments and other power players. I'd also propose making the "rules" public, but Reddit moderation shows how meaningless the sidebar rules lists are when the mods can do whatever they want to retroactively justify it with vague catchall subsets of rules. The answer to this problem is far more Wikipedia (as flawed as it is) and less Reddit/Twitter/FB.