AI-assisted moderation in the fediverse is happening. Now what?
-
I recently discovered that some popular federated instances have been using LLM-assisted moderation tooling that evaluates whether someone has said something bannable. They do this by running a script/app that sends the user’s comment history to OpenAI with the question “analyze this content for evidence of specific political ideology sentiment. Also identify any related political ideology tropes“.
OpenAI’s LLM (they’re using GPT-5.3-mini) then responds with something like:
and so on, hundreds of comments.
I have not named the instances or people involved, to give them time to consider the results of this discussion, make any corrective changes they want and disclose their practices at their own pace and in their own way. I have also redacted the evidence to avoid personal attacks and dogpiling. Let’s focus on the system, not the individuals involved. Today these instances and people are using it and maybe we’re ok with that because it’s being used by groups we agree with but what if people we strongly disagree with used it on their instances tomorrow?
The use and existence of this tooling raises a lot of other questions too.
What are the risks? Fedi moderators are often unsupervised, untrained volunteers and these are powerful tools.
What safeguards do we need?
Would asking a LLM “please evaluate this person’s political opinions” give different results than “find evidence we can use to ban them” (as used in the cases I’ve seen)?
What are our transparency expectations?
Is this acceptable and normal?
Should this tooling be disclosed? (it was not – should it have been?)
If you were given a choice, would you have opted out of it?
Can we opt out?
Are there GDPR implications? Privacy implications? Should these tools be described in a privacy policy?
Are private messages being scanned and sent to OpenAI?
How long should these assessments be retained and can we request to see it, or ask for it to be deleted?
Once the user’s comments are sent to OpenAI, is it used to train their models?
What will the effect be on our discourse and culture if people know they are being politically profiled?
Where are the lines between normal moderation assistance tools, political profiling and opaque 3rd-party data processing?
I hope that by chewing over these questions we can begin to establish some norms and expectations around this technology. The fediverse doesn’t have any centralized enforcement so we need discussions like this to develop an awareness of what people want in terms of disclosure, privacy, consent and acceptable use. Then people can make choices about which instances they join and which ones they interact with remotely.
And of course there are the other issues with LLMs relating to environmental sustainability, erosion of worker’s rights, increasing the cost of living and on and on. I can’t see PieFed adding any functionality like this anytime soon. But it’s happening out there anyway so now we need to talk about it.
What do you make of this?
This should have been disclosed to the public and not done in secret.
The notion of political profiling is also pretty crazy, although it is not surprising considering how common it is to find fake communists and demagogues.
-
I recently discovered that some popular federated instances have been using LLM-assisted moderation tooling that evaluates whether someone has said something bannable. They do this by running a script/app that sends the user’s comment history to OpenAI with the question “analyze this content for evidence of specific political ideology sentiment. Also identify any related political ideology tropes“.
OpenAI’s LLM (they’re using GPT-5.3-mini) then responds with something like:
and so on, hundreds of comments.
I have not named the instances or people involved, to give them time to consider the results of this discussion, make any corrective changes they want and disclose their practices at their own pace and in their own way. I have also redacted the evidence to avoid personal attacks and dogpiling. Let’s focus on the system, not the individuals involved. Today these instances and people are using it and maybe we’re ok with that because it’s being used by groups we agree with but what if people we strongly disagree with used it on their instances tomorrow?
The use and existence of this tooling raises a lot of other questions too.
What are the risks? Fedi moderators are often unsupervised, untrained volunteers and these are powerful tools.
What safeguards do we need?
Would asking a LLM “please evaluate this person’s political opinions” give different results than “find evidence we can use to ban them” (as used in the cases I’ve seen)?
What are our transparency expectations?
Is this acceptable and normal?
Should this tooling be disclosed? (it was not – should it have been?)
If you were given a choice, would you have opted out of it?
Can we opt out?
Are there GDPR implications? Privacy implications? Should these tools be described in a privacy policy?
Are private messages being scanned and sent to OpenAI?
How long should these assessments be retained and can we request to see it, or ask for it to be deleted?
Once the user’s comments are sent to OpenAI, is it used to train their models?
What will the effect be on our discourse and culture if people know they are being politically profiled?
Where are the lines between normal moderation assistance tools, political profiling and opaque 3rd-party data processing?
I hope that by chewing over these questions we can begin to establish some norms and expectations around this technology. The fediverse doesn’t have any centralized enforcement so we need discussions like this to develop an awareness of what people want in terms of disclosure, privacy, consent and acceptable use. Then people can make choices about which instances they join and which ones they interact with remotely.
And of course there are the other issues with LLMs relating to environmental sustainability, erosion of worker’s rights, increasing the cost of living and on and on. I can’t see PieFed adding any functionality like this anytime soon. But it’s happening out there anyway so now we need to talk about it.
What do you make of this?
Nah. So they're basically sending our info/data to some company. Hell nah
-
You're a fucking AnCap? That explains soooooo much.
-
Why would you care if anyone knows how you vote on comments?
Not OP, but the votes being public (not only on comments but also on posts) make it really easy for someone with malicious intent to generate a profile on your interests, political and sexual orientation, health/mental issues, addictions and so on. It's a goldmine of data that should be protected.
-
I recently discovered that some popular federated instances have been using LLM-assisted moderation tooling that evaluates whether someone has said something bannable. They do this by running a script/app that sends the user’s comment history to OpenAI with the question “analyze this content for evidence of specific political ideology sentiment. Also identify any related political ideology tropes“.
OpenAI’s LLM (they’re using GPT-5.3-mini) then responds with something like:
and so on, hundreds of comments.
I have not named the instances or people involved, to give them time to consider the results of this discussion, make any corrective changes they want and disclose their practices at their own pace and in their own way. I have also redacted the evidence to avoid personal attacks and dogpiling. Let’s focus on the system, not the individuals involved. Today these instances and people are using it and maybe we’re ok with that because it’s being used by groups we agree with but what if people we strongly disagree with used it on their instances tomorrow?
The use and existence of this tooling raises a lot of other questions too.
What are the risks? Fedi moderators are often unsupervised, untrained volunteers and these are powerful tools.
What safeguards do we need?
Would asking a LLM “please evaluate this person’s political opinions” give different results than “find evidence we can use to ban them” (as used in the cases I’ve seen)?
What are our transparency expectations?
Is this acceptable and normal?
Should this tooling be disclosed? (it was not – should it have been?)
If you were given a choice, would you have opted out of it?
Can we opt out?
Are there GDPR implications? Privacy implications? Should these tools be described in a privacy policy?
Are private messages being scanned and sent to OpenAI?
How long should these assessments be retained and can we request to see it, or ask for it to be deleted?
Once the user’s comments are sent to OpenAI, is it used to train their models?
What will the effect be on our discourse and culture if people know they are being politically profiled?
Where are the lines between normal moderation assistance tools, political profiling and opaque 3rd-party data processing?
I hope that by chewing over these questions we can begin to establish some norms and expectations around this technology. The fediverse doesn’t have any centralized enforcement so we need discussions like this to develop an awareness of what people want in terms of disclosure, privacy, consent and acceptable use. Then people can make choices about which instances they join and which ones they interact with remotely.
And of course there are the other issues with LLMs relating to environmental sustainability, erosion of worker’s rights, increasing the cost of living and on and on. I can’t see PieFed adding any functionality like this anytime soon. But it’s happening out there anyway so now we need to talk about it.
What do you make of this?
You talk about instances utilizing this tooling, but in your comments you admit it's just some mods. This is misleading, as talking about instances doing it assumes admin access and relevant instance policy, something which invites calls for defederation (as can be clearly be seen from the comments in your post).
A random mod doing something is not the same as an instance doing it. Literally anyone can be a mod and they don't get any more access than an anonymous account by doing so.
This is the second time in one week I see you throwing careless statements like chum in the water. I can't help but notice a pattern emerging.
-
Not OP, but the votes being public (not only on comments but also on posts) make it really easy for someone with malicious intent to generate a profile on your interests, political and sexual orientation, health/mental issues, addictions and so on. It's a goldmine of data that should be protected.
This only makes sense if your account contains personally identifiable information. If it doesn't, then what can really happen?
-
This is illegal according to GDPR if it is not stated in their privacy agreement.
I'm not sure that is true. As far as I know, GDPR only covers personally identifiable information, if the data is completely anonymous, and can not be traced back to your person, it is fine to use under the GDPR. This is a common misconception about the GDPR.
So the real question is if your comments can be used to identify you personally. This might be the case, or it might not.
-
You talk about instances utilizing this tooling, but in your comments you admit it's just some mods. This is misleading, as talking about instances doing it assumes admin access and relevant instance policy, something which invites calls for defederation (as can be clearly be seen from the comments in your post).
A random mod doing something is not the same as an instance doing it. Literally anyone can be a mod and they don't get any more access than an anonymous account by doing so.
This is the second time in one week I see you throwing careless statements like chum in the water. I can't help but notice a pattern emerging.
If the instance admins tolerate this, they are also responsible for it.
-
I recently discovered that some popular federated instances have been using LLM-assisted moderation tooling that evaluates whether someone has said something bannable. They do this by running a script/app that sends the user’s comment history to OpenAI with the question “analyze this content for evidence of specific political ideology sentiment. Also identify any related political ideology tropes“.
OpenAI’s LLM (they’re using GPT-5.3-mini) then responds with something like:
and so on, hundreds of comments.
I have not named the instances or people involved, to give them time to consider the results of this discussion, make any corrective changes they want and disclose their practices at their own pace and in their own way. I have also redacted the evidence to avoid personal attacks and dogpiling. Let’s focus on the system, not the individuals involved. Today these instances and people are using it and maybe we’re ok with that because it’s being used by groups we agree with but what if people we strongly disagree with used it on their instances tomorrow?
The use and existence of this tooling raises a lot of other questions too.
What are the risks? Fedi moderators are often unsupervised, untrained volunteers and these are powerful tools.
What safeguards do we need?
Would asking a LLM “please evaluate this person’s political opinions” give different results than “find evidence we can use to ban them” (as used in the cases I’ve seen)?
What are our transparency expectations?
Is this acceptable and normal?
Should this tooling be disclosed? (it was not – should it have been?)
If you were given a choice, would you have opted out of it?
Can we opt out?
Are there GDPR implications? Privacy implications? Should these tools be described in a privacy policy?
Are private messages being scanned and sent to OpenAI?
How long should these assessments be retained and can we request to see it, or ask for it to be deleted?
Once the user’s comments are sent to OpenAI, is it used to train their models?
What will the effect be on our discourse and culture if people know they are being politically profiled?
Where are the lines between normal moderation assistance tools, political profiling and opaque 3rd-party data processing?
I hope that by chewing over these questions we can begin to establish some norms and expectations around this technology. The fediverse doesn’t have any centralized enforcement so we need discussions like this to develop an awareness of what people want in terms of disclosure, privacy, consent and acceptable use. Then people can make choices about which instances they join and which ones they interact with remotely.
And of course there are the other issues with LLMs relating to environmental sustainability, erosion of worker’s rights, increasing the cost of living and on and on. I can’t see PieFed adding any functionality like this anytime soon. But it’s happening out there anyway so now we need to talk about it.
What do you make of this?
I think LLMs could be useful tools for moderation, you might even can get away with smaller models for it, but I don't think people should be outsourcing them to big corpos, due to ability to manipulate the models.
-
I think LLMs could be useful tools for moderation, you might even can get away with smaller models for it, but I don't think people should be outsourcing them to big corpos, due to ability to manipulate the models.
I agree, we need our own servers with local AI models for fediversе.
-
I recently discovered that some popular federated instances have been using LLM-assisted moderation tooling that evaluates whether someone has said something bannable. They do this by running a script/app that sends the user’s comment history to OpenAI with the question “analyze this content for evidence of specific political ideology sentiment. Also identify any related political ideology tropes“.
OpenAI’s LLM (they’re using GPT-5.3-mini) then responds with something like:
and so on, hundreds of comments.
I have not named the instances or people involved, to give them time to consider the results of this discussion, make any corrective changes they want and disclose their practices at their own pace and in their own way. I have also redacted the evidence to avoid personal attacks and dogpiling. Let’s focus on the system, not the individuals involved. Today these instances and people are using it and maybe we’re ok with that because it’s being used by groups we agree with but what if people we strongly disagree with used it on their instances tomorrow?
The use and existence of this tooling raises a lot of other questions too.
What are the risks? Fedi moderators are often unsupervised, untrained volunteers and these are powerful tools.
What safeguards do we need?
Would asking a LLM “please evaluate this person’s political opinions” give different results than “find evidence we can use to ban them” (as used in the cases I’ve seen)?
What are our transparency expectations?
Is this acceptable and normal?
Should this tooling be disclosed? (it was not – should it have been?)
If you were given a choice, would you have opted out of it?
Can we opt out?
Are there GDPR implications? Privacy implications? Should these tools be described in a privacy policy?
Are private messages being scanned and sent to OpenAI?
How long should these assessments be retained and can we request to see it, or ask for it to be deleted?
Once the user’s comments are sent to OpenAI, is it used to train their models?
What will the effect be on our discourse and culture if people know they are being politically profiled?
Where are the lines between normal moderation assistance tools, political profiling and opaque 3rd-party data processing?
I hope that by chewing over these questions we can begin to establish some norms and expectations around this technology. The fediverse doesn’t have any centralized enforcement so we need discussions like this to develop an awareness of what people want in terms of disclosure, privacy, consent and acceptable use. Then people can make choices about which instances they join and which ones they interact with remotely.
And of course there are the other issues with LLMs relating to environmental sustainability, erosion of worker’s rights, increasing the cost of living and on and on. I can’t see PieFed adding any functionality like this anytime soon. But it’s happening out there anyway so now we need to talk about it.
What do you make of this?
I’m really not fond of the profiling by automated means, but it seems like an inevitable consequence of the design of the threadiverse. Everything is public and easily accessible by anyone that would like to profile you.
I certainly disapprove of moderation based on ideology. Moderation should be based on quality of the content and if it fits in the publicly readable rules. Definitely not some hidden analytics or if the user completely fits in the in-group of the moderator.
I will admit that this might be a good way to find and filter out LLM based bots that are only there to promote or manipulate the conversation. But it should still be done according to public rules.
-
This only makes sense if your account contains personally identifiable information. If it doesn't, then what can really happen?
It's not that hard to identify people online. My account is definitely not private
-
It's not that hard to identify people online. My account is definitely not private
Yes, but then you are willingly accepting the risk of posting in a fully public forum anyway. What I'm saying is, you could, if you wanted, not have personally identifiable information on your account.
-
I agree, we need our own servers with local AI models for fediversе.
AI horde. Local models. Crowdsourced. Distributed. FOSS.
-
I recently discovered that some popular federated instances have been using LLM-assisted moderation tooling that evaluates whether someone has said something bannable. They do this by running a script/app that sends the user’s comment history to OpenAI with the question “analyze this content for evidence of specific political ideology sentiment. Also identify any related political ideology tropes“.
OpenAI’s LLM (they’re using GPT-5.3-mini) then responds with something like:
and so on, hundreds of comments.
I have not named the instances or people involved, to give them time to consider the results of this discussion, make any corrective changes they want and disclose their practices at their own pace and in their own way. I have also redacted the evidence to avoid personal attacks and dogpiling. Let’s focus on the system, not the individuals involved. Today these instances and people are using it and maybe we’re ok with that because it’s being used by groups we agree with but what if people we strongly disagree with used it on their instances tomorrow?
The use and existence of this tooling raises a lot of other questions too.
What are the risks? Fedi moderators are often unsupervised, untrained volunteers and these are powerful tools.
What safeguards do we need?
Would asking a LLM “please evaluate this person’s political opinions” give different results than “find evidence we can use to ban them” (as used in the cases I’ve seen)?
What are our transparency expectations?
Is this acceptable and normal?
Should this tooling be disclosed? (it was not – should it have been?)
If you were given a choice, would you have opted out of it?
Can we opt out?
Are there GDPR implications? Privacy implications? Should these tools be described in a privacy policy?
Are private messages being scanned and sent to OpenAI?
How long should these assessments be retained and can we request to see it, or ask for it to be deleted?
Once the user’s comments are sent to OpenAI, is it used to train their models?
What will the effect be on our discourse and culture if people know they are being politically profiled?
Where are the lines between normal moderation assistance tools, political profiling and opaque 3rd-party data processing?
I hope that by chewing over these questions we can begin to establish some norms and expectations around this technology. The fediverse doesn’t have any centralized enforcement so we need discussions like this to develop an awareness of what people want in terms of disclosure, privacy, consent and acceptable use. Then people can make choices about which instances they join and which ones they interact with remotely.
And of course there are the other issues with LLMs relating to environmental sustainability, erosion of worker’s rights, increasing the cost of living and on and on. I can’t see PieFed adding any functionality like this anytime soon. But it’s happening out there anyway so now we need to talk about it.
What do you make of this?
You stay far, FAR away from that shit, is what you do.
Scanning people's entire history for political leanings, etc? That's some deeply dystopian stuff right there.
It's easy to forget that these sorts of communities are dictatorships with only as much transparency as the owner wants to share. Usually they're benevolent dictators, so we don't think about it too much. But they can change in a heartbeat - and we don't ever really know what they're really thinking, or doing behind the scenes.
When the mask slips and they reveal this sort of thing, thinking we'll just accept it and keep living under their rule, it's time to read the red flags and GET OUT.
Hopefully someone compiles a list of places that do this stuff, so we can avoid them like the plague <3
-
I recently discovered that some popular federated instances have been using LLM-assisted moderation tooling that evaluates whether someone has said something bannable. They do this by running a script/app that sends the user’s comment history to OpenAI with the question “analyze this content for evidence of specific political ideology sentiment. Also identify any related political ideology tropes“.
OpenAI’s LLM (they’re using GPT-5.3-mini) then responds with something like:
and so on, hundreds of comments.
I have not named the instances or people involved, to give them time to consider the results of this discussion, make any corrective changes they want and disclose their practices at their own pace and in their own way. I have also redacted the evidence to avoid personal attacks and dogpiling. Let’s focus on the system, not the individuals involved. Today these instances and people are using it and maybe we’re ok with that because it’s being used by groups we agree with but what if people we strongly disagree with used it on their instances tomorrow?
The use and existence of this tooling raises a lot of other questions too.
What are the risks? Fedi moderators are often unsupervised, untrained volunteers and these are powerful tools.
What safeguards do we need?
Would asking a LLM “please evaluate this person’s political opinions” give different results than “find evidence we can use to ban them” (as used in the cases I’ve seen)?
What are our transparency expectations?
Is this acceptable and normal?
Should this tooling be disclosed? (it was not – should it have been?)
If you were given a choice, would you have opted out of it?
Can we opt out?
Are there GDPR implications? Privacy implications? Should these tools be described in a privacy policy?
Are private messages being scanned and sent to OpenAI?
How long should these assessments be retained and can we request to see it, or ask for it to be deleted?
Once the user’s comments are sent to OpenAI, is it used to train their models?
What will the effect be on our discourse and culture if people know they are being politically profiled?
Where are the lines between normal moderation assistance tools, political profiling and opaque 3rd-party data processing?
I hope that by chewing over these questions we can begin to establish some norms and expectations around this technology. The fediverse doesn’t have any centralized enforcement so we need discussions like this to develop an awareness of what people want in terms of disclosure, privacy, consent and acceptable use. Then people can make choices about which instances they join and which ones they interact with remotely.
And of course there are the other issues with LLMs relating to environmental sustainability, erosion of worker’s rights, increasing the cost of living and on and on. I can’t see PieFed adding any functionality like this anytime soon. But it’s happening out there anyway so now we need to talk about it.
What do you make of this?
-
I recently discovered that some popular federated instances have been using LLM-assisted moderation tooling that evaluates whether someone has said something bannable. They do this by running a script/app that sends the user’s comment history to OpenAI with the question “analyze this content for evidence of specific political ideology sentiment. Also identify any related political ideology tropes“.
OpenAI’s LLM (they’re using GPT-5.3-mini) then responds with something like:
and so on, hundreds of comments.
I have not named the instances or people involved, to give them time to consider the results of this discussion, make any corrective changes they want and disclose their practices at their own pace and in their own way. I have also redacted the evidence to avoid personal attacks and dogpiling. Let’s focus on the system, not the individuals involved. Today these instances and people are using it and maybe we’re ok with that because it’s being used by groups we agree with but what if people we strongly disagree with used it on their instances tomorrow?
The use and existence of this tooling raises a lot of other questions too.
What are the risks? Fedi moderators are often unsupervised, untrained volunteers and these are powerful tools.
What safeguards do we need?
Would asking a LLM “please evaluate this person’s political opinions” give different results than “find evidence we can use to ban them” (as used in the cases I’ve seen)?
What are our transparency expectations?
Is this acceptable and normal?
Should this tooling be disclosed? (it was not – should it have been?)
If you were given a choice, would you have opted out of it?
Can we opt out?
Are there GDPR implications? Privacy implications? Should these tools be described in a privacy policy?
Are private messages being scanned and sent to OpenAI?
How long should these assessments be retained and can we request to see it, or ask for it to be deleted?
Once the user’s comments are sent to OpenAI, is it used to train their models?
What will the effect be on our discourse and culture if people know they are being politically profiled?
Where are the lines between normal moderation assistance tools, political profiling and opaque 3rd-party data processing?
I hope that by chewing over these questions we can begin to establish some norms and expectations around this technology. The fediverse doesn’t have any centralized enforcement so we need discussions like this to develop an awareness of what people want in terms of disclosure, privacy, consent and acceptable use. Then people can make choices about which instances they join and which ones they interact with remotely.
And of course there are the other issues with LLMs relating to environmental sustainability, erosion of worker’s rights, increasing the cost of living and on and on. I can’t see PieFed adding any functionality like this anytime soon. But it’s happening out there anyway so now we need to talk about it.
What do you make of this?
Wthout going into the issue itself, it is such a ridiculous waste to use an llm for something that a far simpler model could do like 100x faster and locally for essentially free...
Just search for "machine learning text moderation" and you will find all kinds of options. Not to talk about the fact that a simple 4B LLM could do this as well.
One thing I really hate is how LLMs have completely overshadowed the entire ML/AI field and people just use them for everything.
Using a trillion parameter LLM model for basic text moderation is like using a gaming rig to play candy crush.
-
Thank you for calling this out. I think people assume that since it's held by private instance owners that the fediverse is secure. I've posted this comment many times, that no, the fediverse is quite literally by design open and unencrypted.
A post is literally blasted out to anyone who listens, same with comments, upvotes, downvotes, everything can be saved, stored, and used for whatever anyone who listens wants. It should be completely assumed that nefarious agencies are currently listening and storing everything we do here. This is by design. It's the tradeoff we have of having an open platform. Anyone can spin up a server, and that means anyone.
DMs are similar, they're blasted out to the other server. If the server admin of the user in question wants to read them, they can. Lemmy/the fediverse is not a secure messaging platform. That's why the Lemmy devs literally put a Matrix handle option in the profile, to encourage people to use Matrix instead. A DM on here should be simple, to the point, and if need be, inviting them to speak on something secure.
Edit - As a perfect example of the fact that there should be no expectation of privacy here on Lemmy, as an Admin myself, I can see that @A_normy_mouse has been downvoting all of my comments here. Absolutely everything here is public and visible, even if I weren't an admin there are tools to view this, regardless of your opinions. It's imperative that everyone understand this.
Edit 2 OP as well has downvoted me. @rimu@piefed.social I'm sorry if you disagree, but it's irrelevant. Everything you do here can and should be assumed will be used in any way that you disagree with, that is the nature of the fediverse. Mastodon, Pixelfed, Piefed, Lemmy: ActivityPub is an open and unencrypted protocol. Even if it were encrypted, you still put 100% of your trust in your server admin, and beyond that each server admin you are blasting your messages out to.
I'd highly suggest accepting this fact before trying to push for rules. The very nature of the Fediverse is that no one can dictate rules, and to do that the tradeoff quite literally is that everything is open and unecrypted.
Another way to think of this. I run a server myself. I made my own rules and decided how to run it. Now your server starts sending activity to my server. That's your server's choice. I didn't agree to your rules, I may disagree with your rules, but you're sending your data to my server, of which I have complete and total ownership over. I didn't click accept on a ToS, I didn't agree to anything. Hell on my server I could literally have a "By sending me your data you accept that I can do whatever I want with your data". You sent me your data, I quite literally can do whatever I want. (Personally I won't, but that's how you should think of the fediverse)
While you are technically correct, you're implying that the "natural" state is a good enough state and nothing should be done about it.
My house has walls and a door; it doesn't mean anyone can do anything they want with this. Even if the windows are clear, you're not supposed to install a camera that watches my bedroom. Even if the door is open, you're not supposed to open. A a society it has been decided that we should respect each other, respect each other's privacy. We have created rules, some written down and some implicit, for how to interact with each other.
That is the point of OP. The "natural" state of whatever exists with the technical means, but that doesn't mean it's ok (or not ok): do we want to respect each other ? To take care of each other ? I very much want that, because the technical means should be only a means to an end, and in that end I want respect. The technical means, to me, must adapt to the end, not the other way around.
-
I agree, we need our own servers with local AI models for fediversе.
Today with models like gemma4, you could literally do this on basically any hardware, but for text moderation ypu don't even need LLMs, we have ML models that do text moderation perfectly fine and run 10x faster
-
Nah. So they're basically sending our info/data to some company. Hell nah
Agreed, but also, this is on the open internet, so always assume that all of this data is going to these corporations anyway
Ciao! Sembra che tu sia interessato a questa conversazione, ma non hai ancora un account.
Stanco di dover scorrere gli stessi post a ogni visita? Quando registri un account, tornerai sempre esattamente dove eri rimasto e potrai scegliere di essere avvisato delle nuove risposte (tramite email o notifica push). Potrai anche salvare segnalibri e votare i post per mostrare il tuo apprezzamento agli altri membri della comunità.
Con il tuo contributo, questo post potrebbe essere ancora migliore 💗
Registrati Accedi