• utopiah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      The business model IS dodging any kind of responsibility so… yeah, I think they’ll pass.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    I think AI is positioned to make better decisions than execs. The money saved would be huge!

  • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    7 days ago

    Honestly, I’ve always thought the best use case for AI is moderating NSFL content online. No one should have to see that horrific shit.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yup.
      It’s a traumatic job/task that gets farmed to the cheapest supplier which is extremely unlikely to have suitable safe guards and care for their employees.

      If I were implementing this, I would use a safer/stricter model with a human backed appeal system.
      I would then use some metrics to generate an account reputation (verified ID, interaction with friends network, previous posts/moderation/appeals), and use that to either: auto-approve AI actions with no appeals (low rep); auto-approve AI actions with human appeal (moderate rep); AI actions must be approved by humans (high rep).

      This way, high reputation accounts can still discuss & raise awareness of potentially moderatable topics as quickly as they happen (think breaking news kinda thing). Moderate reputation accounts can argue their case (in case of false positives). Low reputation accounts don’t traumatize the moderators.

      • blargle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Not sufficiently fascist leaning. It’s coming, Palantir’s just waiting for the go-ahead…

    • ouch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 days ago

      What about false positives? Or a process to challenge them?

      But yes, I agree with the general idea.

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    This might be the one time I’m okay with this. It’s too hard on the humans that did this. I hope the AI won’t “learn” to be cruel from this though, and I don’t trust Meta to handle this gracefully.

    • chrash0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 days ago

      pretty common misconception about how “AI” works. models aren’t constantly learning. their weights are frozen before deployment. they can infer from context quite a bit, but they won’t meaningfully change without human intervention (for now)

    • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      I mean, you could hire people who would otherwise enjoy the things they moderate. Keep em from doing shit themselves.

      But, if all the sadists, psychos, and pedos were moderating, it would be reddit, I guess.

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Would be a shame if people had so sift through AI generated gore before the bots like and comment it. But seriously, good on them.