[dusted]

This comment will of course be down voted, I'll attribute this to selection bias caused by the headline of the article.

You can't classify a comment as boolean toxic, toxicity does not exist in a vacuum. To extend the analogy from it's biological counterpart, toxicity depends on the organism. You should never just a piece of text in isolation and draw any conclusion about it. It must understood in context, both that of the subject, the recipient and the sender.

[ShamelessC]

I mean, what you're saying just isn't really directly on-topic. The article's focus is a a copilot tutorial, clearly meant to be illustrative rather than literally used in production. So it comes across like you're criticizing the article for doing something it isn't really concerned with doing to the degree you are expecting.

Does that make sense?

[dusted]

It does make sense.

However, the framing of the tutorial is clearly about using automated censorship at scale.

Someone is going to roughly copy-paste this into some forum software and call it a day.

[IshKebab]

You'll be downvoted because that is obvious, irrelevant and has no practical consequences.

[account42]

If I had to guess, most downvotes GP got were for "predicting" downvotes.

[dusted]

I've found that sometimes, "predicting" downvotes fails, and the comment is upvoted, it seems to correlate more to whether people agree with the sentiment of the rest of the comment, but I agree that the prediction could influence the outcome.