Timeline for Statement from SO: June 5, 2023 Moderator Action
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 7, 2023 at 17:17 | comment | added | kleopatra | @SPArcheon I agree, just looking at theirs words from a slightly different angle :) | |
| Jun 7, 2023 at 16:05 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @kleopatra pointing out the contradiction there was exactly my point :P. First you claim that there is no sure way to see if something is AI generated even after human scrutiny. Then you say that you are sure that some of the bans were false positive. Unless you are to imply that the bans were part of a test sample of human written post that the company itself crafted to look like AI generated content the company has by its own assumption no way to know if the false positive bans were indeed false positive bans | |
| Jun 7, 2023 at 15:57 | comment | added | kleopatra | it's nastily clever spun pitch .. | |
| Jun 7, 2023 at 15:52 | comment | added | kleopatra | @SPArcheon false positives banned users actually they didn't say that, they just formulated their unsubstiated claims in a way that readers might come to such a conclusion, and they can back out If needed. They talk about a) false positives by tools (agreed by all) b) correlation of suspensions to false positives .. what/how exactly? cant make much sense of their sentence c) (new) posters with original content (both answers and questions - never seen the latter, btw) were suspended - implying they were mistreated. | |
| Jun 7, 2023 at 15:51 | comment | added | zcoop98 | I have no intent to offer defense for SE in this case, but I also feel it's worth noting that it's possible for the moderators and Staff to come to the same conclusion (that "AI detection is nigh-impossible to do with absolute certainty"), and arrive at two different forms of action from that conclusion (E.g. Mods with "Let's deal with what we can, a small amount of false positives is a necessary cost to stem the flow" vs. Staff with "We can't hope to do this accurately or evenly, the least costly option is to let everything through to avoid benching real users"). | |
| Jun 7, 2023 at 15:36 | comment | added | W.O. | You're expecting logical consistency from SE? Well, I guess the illogic just proves they're human. @SPArcheon | |
| Jun 7, 2023 at 15:28 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | to be fair, while I expect that a detection tool test was made on labelled samples (samples you know the nature) at the same time your post opens a tangential far more interesting question: since tools don't work and the mods were apparently told that their logical thinking doesn't too, how was the company able to validate that the false positives banned users on the site were indeed false positive? Surely not just because the banned users told them so, right? | |
| Jun 7, 2023 at 15:21 | history | answered | EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine | CC BY-SA 4.0 |