• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    even if that hypothetical AI could understand human language- and you’re right- it’s coded by people, and it’s actions will be predicated on what those people coded it to do.

    Meaning that the AI gets it’s sense of appropriate from those people. Which means, those people might as well be modding it. or seen as the mods. bots are all-too-frequently used to insulate the people making the decisions as to what should be moderated from those actions. in the case of reddit automod bot yeeting content based on included words… most of that is stupid, I agree, but then it’s those mod’s community.

    • Lvxferre
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Now I got your point. You’re right - the AI in question will inherit the biases and the worldviews of the people coding it, effectively acting as their proxy. IMO for this reason the bot’s actions should be seen as moral responsibility of those people (i.e. instead of “the bot did it”, it’s more like “I did it through the bot”).

      in the case of reddit automod bot yeeting content based on included words… most of that is stupid, I agree, but then it’s those mod’s community.

      Even if we see the comm as belonging to the mod, it’s still a shitty approach that IMO should be avoided, for the sake of the health of the community. You don’t want people breaking the rules by avoiding the automod (it’s too easy to do it), but you also don’t want content being needlessly removed.

      Plus, personally, I don’t see a community as “the mod’s”. It’s more like "the users’ ". The mods are there enforcing the rules, sure, but the community belongs as much to them as it belongs to the others, you know?