Mods and admins: what (if any) policies does your instance have about LLM-driven reply bot accounts? A few specific questions:If the accounts profile gives the impression that it's human, that's arguably impersonation -- although depending on just how the impersonation rule is worded, maybe not. If you have a rule about impersonation, how does it cover this case?If it doesn't set the "automated" flag, is it a violation of your rules? If so what's the wording of the rule?What about if it replies to somebody who has #nobot in their profile?Suppose the account is "well-behaved": the profile discloses that it's not human, it's marked as Automated, and there aren't any examples of it replying to somebody with #nobot in their profile. Is this something that you view as okay? If not, what's your rule that prohibits it?@moderation

all 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

FWIW there is no policy at current on activitypub.space that explicitly prohibits or allows LLM generated content.

So it's case by case and usually the volume of generated content means it ends up getting banned if reported.

Such is already the case for noisy non-AI bots on sites I admin. They get blocked only to decrease my workload lol.

@jdp23@neuromatch.social

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    @jdp23@neuromatch.social while I applaud the intent with #nobot, that isn't a hashtag that is standardized anywhere as far as I am aware.

    At most, it's signalling intent.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago

    @julian Yeah, I don't know what the right answer is here, which is why I asked it as a question ...it's tricky because it's fairly-widely adopted but not standardized and here isn't a lot of stuff encouraging bot developers to pay attention to it. It's certainly signalling intent, but it's a signal that's easy not to know about.

  • source
  • parent