[prohobo]

Nothing particularly interesting outside of AI. But, a lot of interesting new products enabled by the integration of GPT-3, maybe even in the crypto scene.

For example, there have always been ideas floating around about creating a blockchain based repository of scientific knowledge or social media or whatever. The main blockers for ideas like that were always content moderation at scale: how do you know that what someone is uploading is legitimate or follows the rules? How do you moderate content without an overlord? There need to be systems in place to:

- filter out garbage and toxicity,

- allow heterodox submissions (no political censorship),

- and do it all without some kind of admin/moderator

Now GPT-3 can be used to pre-validate content. It can tell you whether a submission follows some kind of logical reasoning, isn't spam, and isn't anti-social. It's not 100% accurate, but it's good enough, and it can be tweaked.

Beyond that, GPT-3 can be used for all sorts of tools like automated codebase documentation (no more writing for developers, yay!), news trend-spotting (for traders/finance), generating landing page copy, etc.

[tralarpa]

> It can tell you whether a submission follows some kind of logical reasoning

Which means that, since those models cannot verify the correctness of facts, they will accept anything created by... those models.

[bheadmaster]

> filter out garbage and toxicity

I find these kinds of descriptions confusing. What does "garbage and toxicity" mean? You might as well have written "filter out bad things", it would be equally vague and subjective.

[prohobo]

Not exactly. It's possible to identify anti-social comments. You just have to define what's considered anti-social, either from a human nature perspective or a cultural one.

For example, if we go the human nature route, then any comment - no matter how inflammatory - is fair game as long as the goal of the comment is to "help the tribe" in some sense. That's kind of like political speech. So, you could faithfully argue ideas like "nazis are good, and we should be like them", as long as you aren't using toxic language and attacks on other people while doing it.

EDIT: Actually fascist/communist ideas contain beliefs that are anti-social, so wouldn't be considered pro-social according to human nature, and that's where the conversation would stop. It still stands that heterodox ideas that don't work, or people don't like, can be technically pro-social.

If we go the cultural route, then identify the mainstream beliefs and rules of discussion and enforce them. This is like the "no swearing" rule, or "no nazis" rule.

You could just codify a set of rules for content that the AI adheres to.

[bheadmaster]

> You just have to define what's considered anti-social

Who exactly should have the authority to decide such things?

[prohobo]

In terms of human nature and tribal dynamics: scientists. Otherwise, the platform creators.

[bheadmaster]

Of course, I forgot to explicitly ask "why".

Why should scientists/platform creators be authority?

Not that I necessarily disagree, but questions like these should have answers with a lot of rational arguments behind them.

[prohobo]

I don't know really, I'm just trying to come up with the least bad solution. There's a lot of corruption even in the scientific community, and major disagreements even on supposedly "settled" science.

Maybe some kind of international organization with (elected) representatives who manage rule sets and audit AIs with the help of scientists. Maybe an open source authority of some kind.

[brigandish]

Can you give an example of an anti-social comment? Something specific would be helpful.

[prohobo]

By human nature, anti-social would be anything that's meant to be destructive to, or an attack on "the tribe" or a member of the tribe. So, some examples:

- "Orange people are useless."

- "Fuck you, you piece of shit."

- "<insert political party> voters are idiots."

- "We should take away the rights of <insert demographic>."

The more sophisticated the comment the more difficult it is to tell whether it's overall anti-social or not, but we can at least identify parts of a comment that are anti-social and flag them as such.

The main issue would be people trying to get around the AI's ability to recognize it by obfuscation.

[TeMPOraL]

Historical classic in modern form:

- "On this issue, there is no middle ground. Either you're <aligned with a direction I advocate> or you're a <something>-ist."

[rudrakshsingh]

But why do we need a blockchain based social media?

[prohobo]

Let's take Twitter for example. There's new information coming out that Twitter colluded with the US government to shadow-ban and censor political opponents (including politicians) in the last 4-5 years, without anyone knowing about it, or being able to prove it.

That wouldn't be possible on a blockchain-based social platform because the algorithm would be public, provably in use, and there would likely be voting mechanisms for changes to the algorithm.