this post was submitted on 13 May 2026

29 points (85.4% liked)

TechTakes

2571 readers

262 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

dgerard@awful.systems

29

what the everLLM-ing fuck is going on (join.piefed.social)

submitted 10 hours ago by froztbyte@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

as seen here and here, some instances are feeding posts wholesale to prompts, for what seem like extremely unsound reasons to me

any of you run into this shit yet?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] self@awful.systems 14 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Finally, just because I included an LLM summary of the comment history in the public modlog, it does not logically follow that the ban occurred because of the LLM summary. It simply happened to correspond very well to my own manual review

yeah, it’s ok because the LLM wasn’t hooked up directly to the ban API, you just used it systemically to not do the only fucking thing you’re supposed to be doing as a moderator

this human in loop shit is how corporations absolve themselves of responsibility for decisions taken purely on the word of an LLM. it lets them fire a worker instead of an executive. you’re sure this is the route you want to go?

[+] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -11 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

yeah, it’s ok because the LLM wasn’t hooked up directly to the ban API, you just used it systemically to not do the only fucking thing you’re supposed to be doing as a moderator

Can you fucking read? What "systematically" are you talking about? How did we use it " only fucking thing you’re supposed to be doing as a moderator"? Is summarizing "the thing you're supposed to be doing as a moderator"? Is doing a summary once "systematically"? Why are you continuing to spread disinfo?

Once again. The admin in question DID NOT USE THE LLM TO DECIDE ON THE ADMIN ACTION. Can you understand this? Can you read this? Am I talking to a wall?! You are swallowing disinfo and then spitting your outrage mindlessly on people.

[–] self@awful.systems 11 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

no but you’re about to be talking to a defed unless you stop this all caps fake outrage shit. should I do you the favor of deleting the garbage post you just made so you can give it another go?

[–] self@awful.systems 9 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

think very carefully on this because I’m not sure pretending to not understand what I’m asking is working out for you

[–] self@awful.systems 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

assume I know and understand that the LLM did not literally do the banning

maybe there’s a large body of existing research on how even human in the loop systems confirm and worsen biases? maybe it’s a bit obvious when you go through the process the moderator took to get to their decisions in your head? slowly now, maybe you’ll get there

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

assume I know and understand that the LLM did not literally do the banning

I am telling, again, that the human did not use the LLM to think for them either. The admin took the decision to ban the user irrespective of the LLM, and the rest of our admin team and me specifically, would never let an admin become a "human in the loop". The LLM was used just to summarize, as part of the test, with a misguided inside joke on using OpenAI tech.

I will readily admit that there was mistakes made by the admin. Not on their actions, but on their visuals. Because those visuals were spun to keep feeding this made-up controversy. We didn't use the LLM to decide or even guide our decision, but it appeared like we did, and we already owned that.

[–] self@awful.systems 9 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The admin took the decision to ban the user irrespective of the LLM, and the rest of our admin team and me specifically, would never let an admin become a “human in the loop”. The LLM was used just to summarize

you don’t appear to have much understanding of how a human in the loop system works in practice. LLM summaries are used to confirm biases, especially when the prompt is something along the lines of “do these posts contain ?” though these systems are stochastic so you’re going to get unpredictable biases regardless of the prompt.

I don’t accept that the LLM summary didn’t influence the decision because the mod in question confirmed that he knew the LLM agreed with him (that’s bias, and also not something LLMs are capable of actually doing) and because if it didn’t, then the summary is worthless

which is why maybe you should just not have them in the future? just don’t touch LLMs when you’re doing mod work. either there’s no reason for it or you’re doing something monstrously wrong.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

I don’t accept that the LLM summary didn’t influence the decision because the mod in question confirmed that he knew the LLM agreed with him (that’s bias, and also not something LLMs are capable of actually doing) and because if it didn’t, then the summary is worthless

In this case, according to the admin in question, the LLM summary came after the decision, as a sort of a test. I.e. the admin made a decision, and wanted to see if an LLM would subsequently agree with that decision. In this specific case, it did, which is why they misguidedly decided to keep its summary in the modlog (opening us up to this whole shitstorm), but ultimately, that admin anyway decided LLMs in the mix is not good at all, which is why you never again saw an LLM summary in the modlog.

I can only put so much fault for a person for just testing shit out, yanno? I am not happy that they decided to use the output of the test because they are not familiar with how quickly disinfo breeds, but ultimately they came to the right decision anyway. If they had not and they had raised the issue on using LLMs officially, they would have been shut down.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 7 points 8 hours ago

Having a LLM confirm a decision is the same thing as having the LLM make a decision and then figure out if the mod agrees with it. If they would have chosen not to rule based on the LLM output, then the LLM was part of the decision making process. The order does not matter.

Including the LLM outputting something that implies a determination at any step automatically makes it part of the process.

[+] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -6 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

this human in loop shit is how corporations absolve themselves of responsibility for decisions taken purely on the word of an LLM. it lets them fire a worker instead of an executive. you’re sure this is the route you want to go?

I completely agree with you. We have never and will never go that route.

Here's the answer to the only question you posted which should be obvious from everything else I've said and done.

[–] self@awful.systems 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

cool! please make it clear to the mod in question that they shouldn’t be using an LLM for anything in the future, even summarizing posts. make it part of your instance’s policies.

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

lol, lmao even

you do realize all this comes across as running interference while feeling real guilty? you could just, like, drop a link to a repo with the bits. you know, with commit history. like i've been asking you for. just simply linking to that would be a real quick way to settle the issue! it's even some free code review for you!