Maybe AI could solve for people who use the “laugh” emoji as an unlimited proxy for the “thumbs down”?
(the latter of which has limited uses per day)?
(the latter of which has limited uses per day)?
Maybe AI could solve for people who use the “laugh” emoji as an unlimited proxy for the “thumbs down”?
(the latter of which has limited uses per day)?
For once we agree! Unfortunately this forum is loaded with children who lack the ability to debate with words. Luckily they are all +1s to our meaningless reaction score so it is really a net win for the "victim".
Based on personal experience, I doubt that is true in most cases.Yes - collective discussion is how it's done here too.
I just checked, and none of the posts you linked were ever reported. So no mod ever reviewed the posts.Based on personal experience, I doubt that is true in most cases.
There are too many moderators on this forum, with many individual decisions.
The last two posts are spam https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...und-music-from-a-track-to-just-leave.1130354/
This should have been deleted https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/vmtek-virtualization-platform-coupon-giveaway.2418688/
And threads like https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/digital-life-destroyed-from-hacker-malware.2418387/ are probably allowed just to generate traffic.
I’m sorry, I should have inserted a pause between the two.I just checked, and none of the posts you linked were ever reported. So no mod ever reviewed the posts.
I'm not following how you think this proves mods here don't work as a group?
A perfect role for artificial intelligence; discussion forums moderation
But, AI is supposed to be even better than us at things.
Can't speak for MR, but I moderate on two other boards, and in each case we reach decisions through collective discussion. Unless it's a clear case of spam, no one moderator can make a decision on his/her own. In many cases it's black and white and the mods will be in immediate agreement, but in some situations we'll have dozens of posts between us before a decision is made. Point is, there is enough nuance in moderation to warrant discussion before decisions are made, and even if an AI were capable of such nuance, I wouldn't want a single source making the call.
AI could help the moderators by flagging post but, the moderators are needed to make the decisions on what to do with the post (i.e. I think that AI could help the moderators but that the moderators are needed for the decision making).
This a common misconception that mods see all posts, so if a rule breaking post exists, it is because a mod allowed it. This is definitely not the case. If you see a post that clearly breaks the rules, the more likely explanation is no mod saw it among the thousands of new posts each day. If you see posts like that, please report them so we can take a look.There are still plenty of one word replies. And the insults do fly. All against the rules, but not all moderated.
This a common misconception that mods see all posts, so if a rule breaking post exists, it is because a mod allowed it. This is definitely not the case. If you see a post that clearly breaks the rules, the more likely explanation is no mod saw it among the thousands of new posts each day. If you see posts like that, please report them so we can take a look.
Mods here can and do make decisions on their own if the issue is clear cut. For example, "You are a moron", does not leave much up for interpretation and would normally just be handled by a single mod. If something is less clear cut, it is discussed by multiple mods to reach a consensus.Perhaps you can clarify another thing, you use the word 'we', and someone else suggested it was a group decision. Is that the norm, or can moderators make a decision on their own?
AI is merely the latest in a very long line of human inventions that have sparked fearful debate over whether it is good or bad for humanity. The answer is, in every case, both.Some people believe AI is even better than us at things.
That's one of the main reasons that people should be afraid of it.
The issue with moderation on this forum is not necessarily that it is performed by humans but rather that:
1) often a _single_ human decides (collective discussion is referenced but I do not see this reflected in moderator messaging).
2) there is no means to contest a moderator action : they decide, the decision is final, even if questionable or based on clearly incorrect assessment or an overly broad ‘rule’. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship.
The whole mechanism seems arbitrary and I have found moderators here to be very sensitive… jokes have been made about an AI being unable to distinguish between jokes and serious statements but the same could be said of some moderators
Sites like StackOverflow have a community moderation platform which makes assessment of any post a matter of multiple site users, thus making the entire process much more objective.
Even with a positive response score (which would denote positive contribution to this community) on my profile, I will likely get banned for this inflammatory content (which would prove the point).