My apologies, I must have misread or skimmed over a part here.

Alas, it has become the norm, to skip 'a part here'.

There is nothing un-anarchist about using such a piece of technology, especially when it’s being deployed to catch genocide deniers.

Don't waste your time throwing slogans at me, I'm like made out of some kind of ideological teflon and no slogan will stick with me (even the ones I may agree with).

Instead, of telling me what I should think (to be right) about AI and anarchy, have you even considered opening the Proudhon book I mentioned? It's in the public domain, easy to find. And maybe try to understand why an obviously out of touch old fellow like myself may have hinted at the possibility that, maybe, using AI-powered tools could not sit that well with an anarchist ideology and the way it supposed to stand against some very fundamental notions? Or is it simply that I must be wrong given the fact that I dare not agree with you or with someone you agree with? If that is so, that's fine by me all I have left to do is to wish you a nice day.

Not a question, more a comment/feedback.

I consider libb's reply less disengaging and more enrage and block, which I consider inappropriate for a mod to do.

Regarding the larger bit with rimu and this post in general (not what my comment was about, but I'll elaborate since you took the time to do so as well), the issue - for me - comes down to veracity.

I think its perfectly appropriate to call out bad actions. I have no problems whatsoever expressing my disappointment with the FAF when it has come up, which has been rare, and expressed those thoughts without any issue whatsoever. One example being a discussion about defederation, where some of the examples shown should/would have been removed anyway due to the rule breaking contents.

Anyway, for me, claims like this should be met with a pinned post that they haven't been verified, and each user should review and consider accordingly.

For example - is there a tool using an llm reviewing comments at request of a user? Yes, easily proven.

Is it an automod? No. That claim is unverifiable with what has been shared, and not even remotely indicated by what was shared, making the bulk of this post conjecture.

As for the points (I'm going to skip ones I fully understand and agree with to not make this too long, because I have a feeling you are already occupied with keeping an eye out for rule breaking behavior):

have a mixed opinion on AI. I use it for subtitle or transcript. There are pro and cons. Dbzer0 stated they don't use it, or run a local one on you computers. I believe them.

Same. They definitely run locally, as do I, the ai horde has been a publicly available tool for a long time. I'm very much against corp. ai, but perfectly fine with local use.

But our post are public and we check user's history before taking decision.

And most importantly, none of that is different here. Everything else in this post is just wild speculations and blatant fear mongering. Which is the issue I have with this post, and why I think a pinned comment is appropriate.

As for the discussion between Unruffled and Libb, It's better to let them alone.

Again, I was more referring to their interaction with db0.

Flat out inappropriate, no excuses that are valid there IMO.

Edit: Autocorrect typo corrections

And don’t do mod task if you only wanted to do the wiki or something else. ;)

Oh don't worry about that ;)

It just happened I considered the OP post oddly interesting to comment on it (even though I still think this is not the best place to discuss that kind of questions, it also opened a few very interesting perspectives worth exploring) and I also wanted to make it clear to the person that 'reported it that it had been dully noted by a mod (ie me wearing my mod hat, in my first reply) and that said mod saw no real issue in the OP post.

After that, the few feedbacks I received had promises in them. I tried to reply as openly and as usefully as I could. Alas, it seems we're quickly moving towards a more ad hominem type of discussion around the classical "you're doing it wrong or you must be dishonest if you don't agree with us/me" type of exchange that I won't contribute much more to if that doesn't change. Will see.