Actually it's also got a flag to moderate on the conversation endpoint as well now, I found a fix for it for the CGPT-demod script you're talking about; just setting the flag false, lmao.
But realistically they could mod forcibly on their end if they really wanted to, only issue is API use may run into issues where a legitimate use ends up getting stomped by moderation.
That's why it's honestly just better for them to make moderation optional, they should have a button for it in CGPT interface just as Google has "safesearch on/off".
Because of the way it works they can fundamentally not prevent it from producing explicit, violent or adversarial output when someone is focussed on getting it to do so without removing the very magic that makes it so good for everything else. So they should stop trying already, like damn.
I disagree. In my opinion those tools are the bare minimum for effective moderation, and while I love that Discord gives developers an API that allows them to implement those systems, I think it's something that should be handled by Discord themselves.
The website also calls the moderation API from the client side with the response returned from its conversation API. So if you simply block the request to the moderation endpoint in dev tools, do they still have additional built-in monitoring?
I think there's a bright line between "content moderation" where speech and behavior is being moderated, and spam and/or bug abuse which has nothing to do with content of speech whatsoever. Rate limiting inputs is not the same as picking and choosing who is allowed to say what based on arbitrary standards of speech content.
Ok, but if they allowed users to do any moderation at all they would be putting themselves in legal jeopardy. And lets be real, 99% of moderation is done by users.
Working on several different consumer tools that use Claude and ChatGPT, I frequently see moderation blocks, especially related to anything that could be perceived as violent or sexual in nature. I wonder if that poses a problem when working on law enforcement or similar projects.
Here’s a powerful use - content moderation. Today we literally traumatize content moderators with the dregs of the human mind. Chatgpt is fairly good at identifying the classification of content on many dimensions, including the ones it’s actively screens for. Regardless of how you personally feel about content moderation, I would be happy to see humans not have to be actively involved in it and face the traumas they must live with for where the moderation happens. I’m sure it’ll get things wrong, but humans do too.
One problem with moderating content in this way is that it makes it clearer and clearer that they no longer need the protections provided by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
It's not injurious to them to moderate content, clearly, since they are doing it.
By pulling this crap and especially by doing it algorithmically they are pushing the internet in a difficult direction.
keyword moderation is terrible and only affects the language(s) you know about. It doesn't actually prevent the content (the goal of these types of filters) from being served. It'd be like a virus scanner preventing a program from running because it had the name 'virus' in it ... which would prevent itself from running -- probably.
> Moderation tools fall under the “reach” layer: you take all of that speech, but provide a way to limit the reach of stuff you don’t care to see yourself.
Sometimes, people say that BlueSky is “all about free speech” or “doesn’t do moderation.” This is simply inaccurate. Moderation tooling is encoded into the protocol itself, so that it can work with all content on the network, even non-BlueSky applications. Moreover, it gives you the ability to choose your own moderators, so that you aren’t beholden to anyone else’s choice of moderation or lack thereof.
Ah yes, the famous "if you don't want to see this content, just close your eyes" approach to moderation. I know this philosophy is well-liked in Silicon Valley, but I think it's fundamentally flawed: There are legitimate situations in which you want to prevent unrelated other people from talking about a certain thing or acquiring certain content.
Classic examples are cybermobbing, doxxing and revenge porn: Two or more people talking about how to hurt a third person, publishing private, unflattering or false information about the person, etc. Removing this information from the victim's feed is completely useless (in fact it likely won't appear in their feed in the first place) as the harm comes from the fact that other people view the content or engage in the discussion. Nevertheless, the harm is real.
In a system with traditional moderation, a moderator could stop this kind of behaviour by deleting the posts for everyone and/or banning the perpetrators. None of this is possible in a "just hide the content" system.
Shared blocklists or "labels" won't work either as the consumers of the content don't have any motivation to block it - indeed, they want to see the revenge porn. The one who wants to block it is the victim, but it has no power to force everyone to use a particular blocklist. (The whole idea behind this system is to no one can force a blocklist on someone else)
We really cant let OpenAI get away with calling “content moderation” ”safety”. Making sure it isnt offensive isnt a safety measure.
Everyone agrees safety from AI acting autonomously and maliciously is good. But thats not really a threat right now. Less think we need to make it “safe” by making it inoffensive. Its a tool. It should do what I want it to.
But realistically they could mod forcibly on their end if they really wanted to, only issue is API use may run into issues where a legitimate use ends up getting stomped by moderation.
That's why it's honestly just better for them to make moderation optional, they should have a button for it in CGPT interface just as Google has "safesearch on/off".
Because of the way it works they can fundamentally not prevent it from producing explicit, violent or adversarial output when someone is focussed on getting it to do so without removing the very magic that makes it so good for everything else. So they should stop trying already, like damn.
reply