this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
68 points (97.2% liked)

Fediverse

18860 readers
124 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
68
How can the Fediverse protect against AI slop? (lemm.ee)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Fediverse is a great system for preventing bad actors from disrupting "real" human-human conversations, because all of the mods, developers and admins are all working out of a desire to connect people (as opposed to "trust and safety" teams more concerned about user retention).

Right now it seems that the Fediverses main protection is that it just isn't a juicy enough target for wide scale spam and bad faith agenda pushers.

But assuming the Fediverse does grow to a significant scale, what (current or future) mechanisms are/could be in place to fend off a flood of AI slop that is hard to distinguish from human? Even the most committed instance admins can only do so much.

For example, I have a feeling all "good" instances in the near future will eventually have to turn on registration applications and only federate with other instances that do the same. But it's not crazy to imagine that GPT could soon outmaneuver most registration questions which means registrations will only slow the growth of the problem but not manage it long-term.

Any thoughts on this topic?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (19 children)

Hi there! Admin of Tucson.social here.

I think that the only way the fediverse can honestly handle this is through local/regional nodes not interest based global nodes.

Ideally this would manifest as some sort of non-profit entity that would work with municipalities to create community owned spaces that have paid moderation.

So then comes the problem of folks not agreeing with a local nodes moderation staff - but that's also WHY it should be local. It's much easier to petition and organize against someone who exists in your town than some guy across the globe who happens to own a large fediverse node.

This model just doesn't work (IMO) if nodes can't be accountable to a local community. If you don't like how Mastodon, or lemmy.world are moderated you have zero recourse. For Tucson.social - citizens of Tucson can appeal to me directly, and because they are my fellow citizens I take them FAR more seriously.

Only then will people be trusting enough to allow for the key element to protecting against AI Slop. Human Indemnification Systems. Right now, if you wanted to ask the community of lemmy.world to provide proof they are human, you'd wind up with an exodus. There's just no trust for something like that and it would be hard to acquire enough trust.

With a local node, that conversation is still difficult, but we can do things that just don't scale with global nodes. Things like validating a person by meeting them to mark them as "indemnified" on a platform, or utilizing local political parties to validate if a given person is "real" or not using voter rolls.

But yeah, this is a bit rambly, but I'll conclude that this is a problem that exists at the intersection between trust and scale and that I believe that local nodes are the only real solution that can handle both.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I too think that regional instances would be ideal for a "backbone" of the social web. But at the same time, I feel that interest-based connection is a truly unique strength of the internet and it would be a sad thing to lose to the slop.

Ultimately, I think that more, smaller instances is likely the best "ultimate" defense against slop since there is no incentive for them to scale beyond their needs. But every instance admin is technically responsible for the content on all federated instances. Which can get overwhelming!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean, regional instances don't have to stop folks from engaging primarily with interest based communities.

Some regions will dominate certain interests for example - here in Tucson we're consider one of the Amateur Astronomy capitals of the world. If mander.xyz were to disappear tomorrow, Tucson would make a good home for all of the fediverse's astronomy needs even though its a region based instance.

Further, there's nothing that states an interest-based instance needs any registration. One could imagine a world where local instances have all the users and identities, and the interest based instances simply provide communities to the larger fediverse with no users of their own.

But yeah, it's definitely a paradigm shift that makes interest based communities a bit more difficult to find.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Further, there’s nothing that states an interest-based instance needs any registration. One could imagine a world where local instances have all the users and identities, and the interest based instances simply provide communities to the larger fediverse with no users of their own.

Yes, I've had this same thought and I think it's a great model! If it comes to pass or not remains to be seen. But the concept is good!

load more comments (16 replies)