3 ms·

>Heck, I could write awful things here on HN Yet you don't (I assume), why? If I were to guess, it's because you would be banned quite swiftly. It's a niche p

>Heck, I could write awful things here on HN Yet you don't (I assume), why? If I were to guess, it's because you would be banned quite swiftly. It's a niche place after all, generally speaking, it's certainly no Facebook in terms of scale. Unfortunately, if a place like HN is swamped with accounts and comments all going against that, yes AI is going to be used to automatically detect and remove some comments, as well as more strict requirements for account creation. As many other platforms have leaned towards. We're all operating off the basic premise we're not trying to be bad actors trying to ruin the experience for others. Once that premise no longer exists, say goodbye to most easily accessible platforms that can't afford AI moderation. Now that's out of the way, the general problem with "AI saying awful things" isn't that in isolation. It's that people will then do things with what it's saying. Whether it's harming themselves, others, or even just spreading that "information". This isn't currently a problem because we still have proper checks, but as Google's terrible AI attempts have gone telling people to put glue in their pizza, some people are going to eventually stop checking AI and start believing it "Siri told me sharing my chocolate was healthy for my dogs".

rsanek 2y ago
yeah i guess i disagree with the approach. what we need is for people to consider any information they take in skeptically -- if we censor 'bad' stuff, we're just training people to rely even more on the responses because they'll assume they're correct.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> If I were to guess, it's because you would be banned quite swiftly. Would he? If he needed to quote some passage from To Kill a Mockingbird, would be banned for that? Context is always key. If someone asked for those regexes, and he provided a list, would he be banned for that? I don't know that this fallacy has a name, but it always comes up in censorship discussions, and it's just fucking stupid. Yes, you can shout "fire" in the crowded theater. You're on the stage, and the name of the play is "Chicken Little Shouts Fire at the Theater". And everyone knows that it's most famous line of the play. What you can't do is try to murder people by starting a stampede for the doors. You can't do that even if you figured out how to do so silently.
- lovethevoid 2y ago
  > Would he? Yes the moderation on HN tends to be quite good. Context being important is assumed here, as we're not really talking about someone quoting passages, but flooding forums with slurs with the help of AI.

rsanek 2y ago

yeah i guess i disagree with the approach. what we need is for people to consider any information they take in skeptically -- if we censor 'bad' stuff, we're just training people to rely even more on the responses because they'll assume they're correct.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> If I were to guess, it's because you would be banned quite swiftly. Would he? If he needed to quote some passage from To Kill a Mockingbird, would be banned for that? Context is always key. If someone asked for those regexes, and he provided a list, would he be banned for that? I don't know that this fallacy has a name, but it always comes up in censorship discussions, and it's just fucking stupid. Yes, you can shout "fire" in the crowded theater. You're on the stage, and the name of the play is "Chicken Little Shouts Fire at the Theater". And everyone knows that it's most famous line of the play. What you can't do is try to murder people by starting a stampede for the doors. You can't do that even if you figured out how to do so silently.

lovethevoid 2y ago
> Would he? Yes the moderation on HN tends to be quite good. Context being important is assumed here, as we're not really talking about someone quoting passages, but flooding forums with slurs with the help of AI.