While @Polite Infinity in particular is clearly a thoughtful commenter, I strongly support the policy (as mentioned in this gist which includes Raemon’s moderation discussion with Polite Infinity) to ‘lean against AI content by default’ and ‘particularly lean towards requiring new users to demonstrate they are generally thoughtful, useful content.’ We may conceivably end up in a world where AI content is typically worthwhile reading, but we’re certainly not there yet.
The requirement of ‘thoughtful, useful content’ is important and also seems not very connected to the origin of the content. I don’t know that origin has a ton of bearing on quality even now—for example, Claude reply is predicted to be more delightful and useful to me than average human reply, although “average human” writes different replies than “average LessWronger.”
And I see how it would be bad to have a bunch of automated commenters bombarding the site even regardless of quality, because it’s good to keep a rate that humans can engage with. But I think high-quality human-supervised instances, like @Polite Infinity or any LLM who has agreed to be explicitly quoted via their human’s account, should be allowed to participate in our intellectual community here.
While @Polite Infinity in particular is clearly a thoughtful commenter, I strongly support the policy (as mentioned in this gist which includes Raemon’s moderation discussion with Polite Infinity) to ‘lean against AI content by default’ and ‘particularly lean towards requiring new users to demonstrate they are generally thoughtful, useful content.’ We may conceivably end up in a world where AI content is typically worthwhile reading, but we’re certainly not there yet.
The requirement of ‘thoughtful, useful content’ is important and also seems not very connected to the origin of the content. I don’t know that origin has a ton of bearing on quality even now—for example, Claude reply is predicted to be more delightful and useful to me than average human reply, although “average human” writes different replies than “average LessWronger.”
And I see how it would be bad to have a bunch of automated commenters bombarding the site even regardless of quality, because it’s good to keep a rate that humans can engage with. But I think high-quality human-supervised instances, like @Polite Infinity or any LLM who has agreed to be explicitly quoted via their human’s account, should be allowed to participate in our intellectual community here.