DingoBorat
Slim
"especially since the AI can also see the rationale"Just for clarity - this means that a panel of your peers and the AI all concluded it was a breach of rules. Not just AI, not just one person. On the balance of probability, regardless of what an individual (especially the author) thinks... it is more likely the majority would agree - especially since the AI can also see the rationale.
From the limited examples of what I've seen, of ChatGPT's "work" it has a "Please the author" slant, to its programming, not a "find the error in the argument" one.
I had a post reported (which I queried you about privately and was not seen or ignored) that asked why my post was moderated.
Dreddbot's reasoning, was that it was a personal attack and yet it was not a reply to someone, nor was any particular person mentioned, or even alluded to in the post.
How did Dreadbot come to that conclusion, without being "persuaded"?
Using A.I. that has been programmed as a "Please the human" language model, may not be an accurate squeeze into, what should be completely impartial.
That said, even the straightest cops, will turn a blind eye to something, if a response isn't warranted, based on knowledge or a perception of the individual's "real" character.
A World where there is complete impartiality and there is no feeling or compassion at all, from authority, is probably the most sad and coldest.
Maybe we are already there ..
Last edited: