as seen here and here, some instances are feeding posts wholesale to prompts, for what seem like extremely unsound reasons to me

any of you run into this shit yet?

  • self@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    assume I know and understand that the LLM did not literally do the banning

    maybe there’s a large body of existing research on how even human in the loop systems confirm and worsen biases? maybe it’s a bit obvious when you go through the process the moderator took to get to their decisions in your head? slowly now, maybe you’ll get there

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      assume I know and understand that the LLM did not literally do the banning

      I am telling, again, that the human did not use the LLM to think for them either. The admin took the decision to ban the user irrespective of the LLM, and the rest of our admin team and me specifically, would never let an admin become a “human in the loop”. The LLM was used just to summarize, as part of the test, with a misguided inside joke on using OpenAI tech.

      I will readily admit that there was mistakes made by the admin. Not on their actions, but on their visuals. Because those visuals were spun to keep feeding this made-up controversy. We didn’t use the LLM, but it appeared like we did, and we already owned that.

      • self@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        The admin took the decision to ban the user irrespective of the LLM, and the rest of our admin team and me specifically, would never let an admin become a “human in the loop”. The LLM was used just to summarize

        you don’t appear to have much understanding of how a human in the loop system works in practice. LLM summaries are used to confirm biases, especially when the prompt is something along the lines of “do these posts contain <negative term>?” though these systems are stochastic so you’re going to get unpredictable biases regardless of the prompt.

        I don’t accept that the LLM summary didn’t influence the decision because the mod in question confirmed that he knew the LLM agreed with him (that’s bias, and also not something LLMs are capable of actually doing) and because if it didn’t, then the summary is worthless

        which is why maybe you should just not have them in the future? just don’t touch LLMs when you’re doing mod work. either there’s no reason for it or you’re doing something monstrously wrong.

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          I don’t accept that the LLM summary didn’t influence the decision because the mod in question confirmed that he knew the LLM agreed with him (that’s bias, and also not something LLMs are capable of actually doing) and because if it didn’t, then the summary is worthless

          In this case, according to the admin in question, the LLM summary came after the decision, as a sort of a test. I.e. the admin made a decision, and wanted to see if an LLM would subsequently agree with that decision. In this specific case, it did, which is why they misguidedly decided to keep its summary in the modlog (opening us up to this whole shitstorm), but ultimately, that admin anyway decided LLMs in the mix is not good at all, which is why you never again saw an LLM summary in the modlog.

          • [deleted]@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 day ago

            Having a LLM confirm a decision is the same thing as having the LLM make a decision and then figure out if the mod agrees with it. If they would have chosen not to rule based on the LLM output, then the LLM was part of the decision making process. The order does not matter.

            Including the LLM outputting something that implies a determination at any step automatically makes it part of the process.

            • Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 day ago

              If they would have chosen not to rule based on the LLM output

              They literally just said they had already made the decision when unruffled ran his little experiment. To be clear it’s extremely pathetic of db0 to use ai in any capacity, but you are also showing a severe lack of literacy.

              • self@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 day ago

                hey fucko, you know we don’t have to take their word for it right? we can read all the relevant posts and come to the conclusion that actually the use of LLMs as stated fucking sucks, and that we don’t fucking want it. we can read something and come to a different conclusion than you, believe it or not.