←back to thread

586 points mizzao | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.421s | source
Show context
giancarlostoro ◴[] No.40669810[source]
I've got friends who tried to use ChatGPT to generate regex to capture racial slurs to moderate them (perfectly valid request since they're trying to stop trolls from saying awful things). It vehemently refused to do so, probably due to overtly strict "I'll never say the nword, you can't fool me" rules that were shoved into ChatGPT. Look, if your AI can't be intelligent about sensible requests, I'm going to say it. It's not intelligent, it's really useless (at least regarding that task, and related valid tasks).

Who cares if someone can get AI to say awful things? I can write software that spits out slurs without the help of AI. Heck, I could write awful things here on HN, is AI going to stop me? Doubt it, nobody wants to foot the bill for AI moderation, it can only get so much.

replies(5): >>40670109 #>>40670220 #>>40671835 #>>40671863 #>>40676828 #
lovethevoid ◴[] No.40671863[source]
>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".

replies(2): >>40671952 #>>40671995 #
1. NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[] No.40671995[source]
> 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.

replies(1): >>40672040 #
2. lovethevoid ◴[] No.40672040[source]
> 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.