I sure as fuck ain't okay with it. There is nothing excusable about feeding anyone's posts into The Plagiarism Engine That Lies.

Once the user’s comments are sent to OpenAI, is it used to train their models?

i highly doubt it. from https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/your-data: "As of March 1, 2023, data sent to the OpenAI API is not used to train or improve OpenAI models (unless you explicitly opt in to share data with us)."

opting in to sharing data would seem silly

To be clear, our instance does not utilize any GenAI tools in moderation. Rimu is referring to a single manual action by one admin, using the same user access as any user on the fediverse. The action was likewise completely public.

I'D LIKE YOU TO ANALYSE THIS CONTENT FOR EVIDENCE OF PRO-ZIONIST OR ANTI-PALESTINIAN SENTIMENT. ALSO IDENTIFY ANY COMMON HASBARA TROPES

I obviously did not read the entire comment history, but some of the "evidence" the AI "found" seems quite likely to be made up.

To be clear, I have no problem with that user being banned for their behavior which could well have contradicted server rules (though I'm not sure I'd be comfortable on a server with those rules being enforced in that way). I don't see a problem with my sever federating with other servers that have restrictive political viewpoint rules, and wouldn't recommend others defederate over such rules.

I absolutely do recommend defederation over the mess that is their moderation process though. These people are using destructive and defective technology to make up fake reasons to ban users when they could just state their rule and issue the ban. That tech has negative impacts on me personally and on several communities I'm a part of. So it shouldn't be acceptable to use it in that way, especially when its just making shit up.

1. The AI will sometimes hallucinate the post contents in the "summary" it shows. Without clicking through all those links (thus mostly defeating any time savings involved) you'll never know.
2. The AI will be biased in its analysis, even moreso than a human would. Lots of irrelevant details in the comment history will influence the result way more than they should. That's just how LLMs work.
3. The prompt used in this example leads heavily towards false positive results. Designing an actually neutral prompt for an LLM for this purpose is nearly impossible anyways, but this prompt *definitely* biases heavily towards finding a "pattern" even where there really is none (or when the target user's behavior is no more polarized than the average user).

This moderation practice indicates a significant disregard for good moderation standards. It also does so in a way that relies on a tool that's positively bristling with negative externalities. Instances that work like this should quickly find themselves defederated into their own little bubble, similar to hateful/oppressive instances. This behavior shuls absolutely not be normalized or downplayed.

To address the "poor moderators need to rely on such tools because they're overworked" trope: yes, moderators are often overworked. No, that doesn't make this okay. Perhaps consider limiting the size of your server to whatever size you can comfortably moderate, and letting other volunteers running other servers pick up the slack. That's how the fediverse is *supposed* to work.

I've been uncovering numerous #aiagents and #aiprofiles on the Fediverse that do not disclose they are automated accounts, and trying to pass themselves off as regular users. Those accounts are complete violation of the rights of the #Fedizens to maintain their privacy and the autonomy of the information they share.

This is actually a worse violation.

(sigh) so now I am wary to use #Fediverse at all now not knowing which of whatever I may have 'politically' said would be routed to ICE.

Not to mention how each comment-test burns another 300 watt-hours uselessly burning down my planet. Next they'll be hosting on orbiting space servers? I want none of it.

Not great news for a Monday morning. Hopefully @chad can clarify #mstdnca but I'm really on pause here until these enemies of Earth confess and can be server-blocked.

2026 the year of dead internet reality.

I think the answer is has *at least* a couple parts. First, there must be transparency so people know what is being done with their posts. It must be possible to see the prompt used, so people can decide if it's fair and move to a different instance if it isn't.

Second, it should only be used to bring a post to the attention of a human. All actions must only be done by a person, after they have reviewed the actual post. I think automatically banning or blocking because of the results of an AI should be forbidden (somehow, perhaps blocking an instance).

@piefedadmin

this is just more free LLM training data.

It's also non-consensual data harvesting.

gen-ai is poison.