Na, it's just that people these days aren't that educated anymore.
A censor was a government employed entity where you had to present your text BEFORE you could publish it. Book, newspaper articles, things like. It was in heavy use in the European kingdoms and republics (e.g. during Napoleons reign).
You had no choice there: would you not censor and publish, then hefty fines would be one you. Sometimes even leading to death, e.g. look up "Der Hessische Landbote" from Georg Büchner, a tract against monarchy and feudalism.
So censorship has two keys: mandatory prior check, fines if you publish a text without that.
Moderation however is to keep your channel in a sane tone. It is something you do out of your own will, e.g. to cut down on flaming. And there is no government entity involved that checks the text in question. It is, after all, not identical to censorship.
My guess is that anarchist minded people, that (wrongly) believe that human groups develop organically in a nice way, have a problem with moderation. And then they seek some word with an extremely bad connotation and just use that instead. Just like some politicians use these days "terrorist" in plethora, even when "murder" would describe it better.
IMHO users of "censorship" term often want to manipulate us.
Eh, this hysteria reminds me a lot of the early 1980s when people seriously believed that role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons were bad for mental health - one of Tom Hanks' early roles was in "Mazes & Monsters", a 1982 TV movie that supposedly exposed the sanity-destroying nature of RPGs. Now it looks just silly. Maybe, just as we now get that people can enjoy pretending to be an elf wizard without going insane, others enjoy pretending that a chatbot is their boyfriend and girlfriend and still be well adjusted members of society.
Few if any of the people playing D&D actually thought they were elf wizards, or that they were doing magic, or communing with eldritch gods.
Meanwhile many if not most of the people who have chatbots as their significant other actually have that relationship, and believe it to be as real as a relationship with a human being.
The former are playing a game for entertainment, and suspending their disbelief, the latter are using a machine to satisfy emotional and psychological needs in ways that anyone would consider harmful, and having their beliefs altered by proprietary commercial software sometimes past the point of psychosis.
I think there needs actual statistical evidence (rather than sensationalist hysteria) that very many people think their chatbot lover is real. Before chatbots, there were (and still are as far as I know) phone sex lines where people paid to talk dirty to an actual person. There isn't any reason to believe that most users of sexy chatbots see them as any different from those.
The plural of anecdote is not data - and it was exactly these sort of anecdotes that led to the anti-D&D hysteria as well. Often something else was going on - for instance "Mazes & Monsters itself was very loosely based on an incident where a child prodigy who was known to be an avid D&D player commited suicide. The media was quick to blame D&D, but further investigation revealed he was suffering depression because he realized he was gay and didn't know how to tell his conservative religious parents.
"The logic is that free, user-built companions inside mass-market general-purpose apps are impossible to moderate at scale."
I think they misspelled censor.
Na, it's just that people these days aren't that educated anymore.
A censor was a government employed entity where you had to present your text BEFORE you could publish it. Book, newspaper articles, things like. It was in heavy use in the European kingdoms and republics (e.g. during Napoleons reign).
You had no choice there: would you not censor and publish, then hefty fines would be one you. Sometimes even leading to death, e.g. look up "Der Hessische Landbote" from Georg Büchner, a tract against monarchy and feudalism.
So censorship has two keys: mandatory prior check, fines if you publish a text without that.
Moderation however is to keep your channel in a sane tone. It is something you do out of your own will, e.g. to cut down on flaming. And there is no government entity involved that checks the text in question. It is, after all, not identical to censorship.
My guess is that anarchist minded people, that (wrongly) believe that human groups develop organically in a nice way, have a problem with moderation. And then they seek some word with an extremely bad connotation and just use that instead. Just like some politicians use these days "terrorist" in plethora, even when "murder" would describe it better.
IMHO users of "censorship" term often want to manipulate us.
Not really. They are censored easily and successfully.
However, moderation is hard and the companies are motivated to moderate them toward maximum outrage with some plausible deniality on top of it.
The governments of China, California and New York agree on three harmful aspects of companion AI chatbots.
It begs the conclusion that these 3 are similar Governments in the way they govern.
I liked this article. Does a good job of framing some of the concerns around this in clear language.
e.g.
> Attachment Economy, which is an extractive business model that uses AI to lure people into forming emotional attachments to chatbots
Eh, this hysteria reminds me a lot of the early 1980s when people seriously believed that role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons were bad for mental health - one of Tom Hanks' early roles was in "Mazes & Monsters", a 1982 TV movie that supposedly exposed the sanity-destroying nature of RPGs. Now it looks just silly. Maybe, just as we now get that people can enjoy pretending to be an elf wizard without going insane, others enjoy pretending that a chatbot is their boyfriend and girlfriend and still be well adjusted members of society.
Few if any of the people playing D&D actually thought they were elf wizards, or that they were doing magic, or communing with eldritch gods.
Meanwhile many if not most of the people who have chatbots as their significant other actually have that relationship, and believe it to be as real as a relationship with a human being.
The former are playing a game for entertainment, and suspending their disbelief, the latter are using a machine to satisfy emotional and psychological needs in ways that anyone would consider harmful, and having their beliefs altered by proprietary commercial software sometimes past the point of psychosis.
I think there needs actual statistical evidence (rather than sensationalist hysteria) that very many people think their chatbot lover is real. Before chatbots, there were (and still are as far as I know) phone sex lines where people paid to talk dirty to an actual person. There isn't any reason to believe that most users of sexy chatbots see them as any different from those.
It's important to ground ourselves in the differences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots
Not to say D&D hasn't surely been linked to a few deaths as well... get a large enough sample and you'll see just about anything.
The plural of anecdote is not data - and it was exactly these sort of anecdotes that led to the anti-D&D hysteria as well. Often something else was going on - for instance "Mazes & Monsters itself was very loosely based on an incident where a child prodigy who was known to be an avid D&D player commited suicide. The media was quick to blame D&D, but further investigation revealed he was suffering depression because he realized he was gay and didn't know how to tell his conservative religious parents.
With respect to GDP the #2, #4, and #8 all agree that artificial companionship is probably bad for humans should tell you something.