Sincerity

Here's another AI-related idea. Leo mentioned in his Traps for Online Content Creators blog post how reading all the positive and negative feedback corrupts the mind, and that the feedback you get is extremely noisy, biased, and low quality. Youtube creators should have the option to get an AI summary of feedback from comments under a video. This would make it so that if a creator wanted, they could only read the impersonal summarized feedback, instead of having to read through every biased personal comment, positive or negative, to get a sense of how they're doing. It'd be nice if the creator could also query the AI deeper about some aspects of the feedback, whatever is of interest to them. @Leo Gura What do you think?

I think moderation of social media platforms (and eg. a forum) is something AI would easily cover. A level of human oversight would still be needed, of course. But basically 80% of moderation work could be handed over to AI and perhaps it'd do its job even better. For those familiar with agentic AI: an AI agent "Social Media Moderator" could be created with detailed instructions and attached guideline documents on what to moderate and to what degree. A trigger event for this agent could be a post report, for example. How it could work on this forum: when someone reports another user's post, that post is run through the AI agent that determines whether there is any action needed. If there is, then the AI agent can perform the appropriate actions - hide the post, shoot the user a message, warn the user, perhaps give them a posting restriction. This is all doable with the right tools and software. But then there would still be a level of human oversight that could override AI decisions. This would all require iterative feedback, of course. The agent would have to be adjusted across a span of time to finally find the golden middle and moderate the space in a desirable way. Also, there's a lot of technicalities that would need adjusting - since agent calls could be abused and be costly, there'd have to be rules like "posts older than 1 week can't be reported" or "if an user reports a few posts in a row that weren't guideline-breaking, the user can't report posts for a given time". I'm just presenting it as an interesting idea. Just another thing that can reasonably be delegated to AI. LMK your thoughts, I think this could be an interesting discussion.

@Scholar Might respond to you later. I have a few points in my head but I'm too tired to lay them out. Haha. Possibly

@Carl-Richard Okay. I’m done with the topic - thanks again.

Thanks! Well, I think in the majority of true emergencies the rescued would be aligned in will with the rescuer, so still unimposing. Let’s say that someone starts jaywalking on a red light while I’m next to them waiting for the light to switch, and suddenly I grab them by their shirt and pull them back forcefully because a car would run them over in a second which they didn’t see. That’s still „unimposing” love to me, because we’re assuming that the person’s deepest will is to live. So we’re aligned in will. On the other hand, there’s also the possibility that eg. an overprotective parent will see a choice his teenager wants to make in their life as a „grave danger” to them („an emergency”), and forcefully try to stop the teenager from making it. In this case, there’s high chance that the love would be imposing. Judgement is tricky, isn’t it? I think challenging is still done best from an unimposing love. When there’s imposing, the other side is more likely to close off even more. Yeah, it’s all complex. Love matters are not for the faint of mind!

I think I agree. A powerful thing for (some) parents to realize - that they never really loved their child, they just „cared” about it. That is, loved them only in the limited way they could. I guess with love, I have a standard of it embedded in my definition. Which I acknowledge might be not correct on one hand. But on the other hand, there’s something true about that. Keep in mind, everything I was saying was mostly in reference to your statement „My wish for Leo to go to therapy is out of love”. In my replies, I was pointing to my belief that this is „imposing love” - meaning that you think you know what’s best for someone. Also, since the word „imposing” can be understood in different ways (and I should have cleared this up earlier), I’d like to propose a distinction between soft vs hard imposing. In short, hard imposing would be you applying pressure on someone to do the thing you think is best. And soft imposing is even thinking that you know what’s best. All this to say, I’m not saying you were hard imposing. But when you say „my wish for him to do the thing is out of love”, I see that as soft imposing. So still imposing. In my honest feedback with my friend, after he described his situation and I felt like I more or less understand it, I’d say something like: „Given the circumstances that you have, personally I’d go to therapy. But I acknowledge that I don’t have the full picture, and also this is your path, so the „advice” might not be valid”. I mean, first and foremost, notice that you don’t really know Leo, you don’t know his circumstances. Also, in the exchange with the friend, the assumption is that the friend is interested in advice. But okay, you’re already saying you don’t know what’s best. So nevermind. This whole thing might be about minutiae at this point. 😆 I was just saying that I think „imposing love” fundamentally lacks respect in general. Even if it’s soft imposing. But again, nevermind. I think we basically cleared up everything. Thanks for the discussion - we went on a tangent, but it was interesting.

Hahahahaha. Brilliant exchanges. I’m Jar Jar Binks. 💀

@Leo Gura You’re on fire with these essay-like blog posts these last days! Thanks for them

Listened to this yesterday and thought about posting it as well! Ngl, this professor might be a teeny tiny crackpot and I’m trying to be careful with believing things he’s saying. But he does have a unique perspective, that’s for sure.

Sorry then. Seemed very relevant to the discussion I’ve had with Carl.

Bruh. You’re not listening at all, are you?

Here’s also another insight related to imposing/unimposing: one might believe that women generally want to be imposed on in a masculine-feminine relationship (meaning they want the man to lead and make decisions in the relationship and all that), but I don’t think this is really about imposing. Women want to be imposed only with the things that they ACTUALLY want. Even if they’re not conscious that they want them. And if a man tries to impose a decision that the woman is truly not aligned with, that will be rejected because she will start to feel like there’s genuine imposing on her now. So healthy relationships and love are always non-imposing in the end. The obvious counter-example is the protecting of a small child from danger by a parent, but I think it’s still unimposing because we’re assuming that the child’s deepest will is to continue living. But at some point the „imposing” attitude of the parent must be let go when the child is conscious enough. * * * * * All this love talk is starting to bore me. Let’s talk about hate now 👹🖕☠️

I think it's a tad more complex than that. Parents could care about you, for example, and yet still have a very limited love. The best they can do, which can be not very much. I'd argue that there could be a truthful enough model (which is still only a model, but hear me out) of levels of love. I'd say that unimposing love is above imposing love, for example. Basing this simply on my own love realizations and insights into what God is about. Does God impose? (question is flawed from the start, but roll with it? ) Regarding tough love: I can share honest masculine feedback with my best friend, and he can do with me. But we both understand that we don't know what's best for each other, and this is always stated when giving our views. Maybe it's not "tough" love anymore, but then again: maybe the virtue of "true" tough love (that thinks it knows what's best for someone and imposes it) is not so high from the start. Ultimately, I think imposing love lacks respect. When you think you know better than someone what's best for THEM, in a way you think you're above them. Also note: unimposing love can be expressed in both a feminine and masculine way. I realize it might sound only feminine, but I'd invite to question this assumption. With feminine/masculine, the question is indeed of style and both are good. The removing of a bear trap example is complicated. If the person doesn't want the trap removed from the start (for whatever reason), I think you still shouldn't impose yourself on them like "I'M GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY." And if they want it at the start but scream during the removal, their deepest will is still the removal of the trap so you're not imposing, you're aligned.

@Scholar He said it's love, I just responded with my view on love. No rigid rules - just how I see it. I'm just thinking here!!! jk

Well, but trans sexuality is not banned on current social media platforms, for example. Why would the AI change that? Your argument is based in human will to marginalize. But human will is already the case even with algorithms and human moderation, no? Also, I think free market could do its job if a given social media platform became VERY oppressive with its AI moderation. Another one would arise which would be less oppressive, and that one people would potentially flee to. But also maybe not, I won't die on this particular hill.

@Scholar I think this is why full transparency of the agent's instructions would be important. But that'd only happen on a consciously led platform. Of course we wouldn't want to marginalize views. In my head the AI would only be enforcing guidelines that human moderators are already tasked to enforce. Again, it'd have to be an iterative feedback process and a golden middle would need to be found.

Actually, an AI agent could have a surprising level of complexity, very comparable (if not better) than that of a human. When a post is reported, the AI could also take under consideration everything relevant that was said before in the thread. It could also take under consideration how many warnings the user already has. Et cetera. Also when doing its moderation actions, the agent would lay out its full reasoning process step by step, so that the context is clear to the moderator who's overseeing the AI. These AI agents are not stupid anymore. They could handle really complex cases.

I just googled whether Invision (the software this forum runs on) has the option of AI moderation. Apparently not yet, but it might be coming: https://invisioncommunity.com/forums/topic/484055-automated-assistant-in-v5/#comment-3005672

Exactly! That too. 🤣 On a consciously led social media platform, the AI agent's full instructions could be made transparent, so that everyone knows what they're dealing with.

@Miguel1 Page 59. Face here, for example:

What a bunch of handsome/pretty guys and gals.

That will be 🔥 for sure!

@Carl-Richard You said that your wish for him to go to therapy is out of love and I said you don’t know that he needs it. I believe there’s a sort of discrepancy between wishing someone does the thing you think is best for them and a love motivation. It feels like it’s love, but I’d argue that a deeper love is when you don’t presume things about people and you let them do their thing in the way that they want. And respect their will, beliefs, choices, who they are. In short: to me, „my wish for someone to do the thing I think is best for them is out of love” is an oxymoron. At least to a degree. There’s levels of love, obviously. I was like that with my ex and other people in the past, but I learned different. I guess you could call the former a more egoic love in comparison. This conversation is pointless and wasn’t even the main topic. Again, my points regarding love/charitability were related to the original post and the constant judging and criticism of Leo I see on the forum overall.

Awesome vibes 🤙