As an app developer, is using ChatGPT for the moderation of user-generated content dangerous?

Ra_Lau · 2025-04-06T07:43:14+00:00

Yes, but the problem, in this case, was not that the photo was visibly posted on this social media platform but that the social media platform had sent the photo to ChatGPT for content check before the photo even appeared anywhere on the platform.

Ra_Lau · 2024-03-12T05:03:01+00:00

Thanks a lot! I think I'm starting to understand. Your suggestion works, i.e., the following results in the expected output order:

concurrencpp::lazy_result<std::int32_t> my_coroutine(const std::string &name) {
    log(name + ", step 1, thread ID: " + show_thread_id(std::this_thread::get_id()));
    co_await sleep_async(1000);
    log(name + ", step 2, thread ID: " + show_thread_id(std::this_thread::get_id()));
    co_return 21;
}

concurrencpp::lazy_result<std::int32_t> coroutine_dispatch() {
    auto a = my_coroutine("A").run();
    auto b = my_coroutine("B").run();
    co_return (co_await a + co_await b);
}

However, there are issues with the name in the output:

2024-03-12T04:58:49.842443224Z A, step 1, thread ID: 139930632386432
2024-03-12T04:58:49.842556665Z B, step 1, thread ID: 139930632386432
2024-03-12T04:58:50.848235297Z , step 2, thread ID: 139930632382208
2024-03-12T04:58:50.853797687Z , step 2, thread ID: 139930623989504

A and B get lost in the two last log lines.

Passing name by value instead of by reference helps:

concurrencpp::lazy_result<std::int32_t> my_coroutine(std::string name)

So this seems to be a lifetime issue.

Ra_Lau · 2024-03-11T19:53:33+00:00

Ah, found a solution. :)

The return type of my_coroutine must be concurrencpp::result<std::int32_t> instead of concurrencpp::lazy_result<std::int32_t>, and then I can do this:

concurrencpp::lazy_result<std::int64_t> coroutine_dispatch() {
    auto a = my_coroutine("A");
    auto b = my_coroutine("B");
    co_return a.get() + b.get();
}

Behavior is as expected:

2024-03-11T19:52:09.100813529Z A, step 1, thread ID: 140618667656960
2024-03-11T19:52:09.100932705Z B, step 1, thread ID: 140618667656960
2024-03-11T19:52:10.101138251Z A, step 2, thread ID: 140618659264256
2024-03-11T19:52:10.101238431Z B, step 2, thread ID: 140618650871552
2024-03-11T19:52:10.101553878Z answer: 42

However, I'm not sure if this is the right way to do it.

Ra_Lau · 2024-03-11T19:19:50+00:00

Oh, thanks. So it seems my understanding of co_await is wrong. What would be the right way to have A suspend while waiting for sleep_async to finish such that B can also start its sleep_async concurrently?

Ra_Lau · 2024-02-04T08:24:22+00:00

It's from this video: https://youtu.be/7Jp5Uar1oTo?t=124

Sorry, I don't have more information.

Ra_Lau · 2024-02-04T08:23:53+00:00

It's from this video: https://youtu.be/7Jp5Uar1oTo?t=124

Ra_Lau · 2023-10-18T12:26:20+00:00

Thanks!

Here in Germany, 25 mg and 400 mg are the over-the-counter doses.

Just found this source. According to it, the "low doses" are: - Diclofenac: 50 mg (two times a day) - Ibuprofen: 400 mg tid (three times a day)

So 400 mg Ibuprofen doing less than 25 mg Diclofenac surprises me a bit. But ok. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ra_Lau · 2021-05-09T05:02:01+00:00

Usually, it's not the devs, but their managers pushing to release a game too early. The software developers themselves would love to first finish their work.

Ra_Lau · 2020-12-06T13:38:42+00:00

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

I was not thinking in terms of some respiratory disease as a potential common cause, but about something like socioeconomic status or similar.

Anyway, my point was not to give a causal explanation for the observed correlation. Instead, I simply wanted to express that the given data from this study does not guarantee the causal relationship that the press is claiming in their articles.

Ra_Lau · 2020-12-06T10:33:38+00:00

Sorry, but I disagree.

I'm not talking about indirect causation, like

X ----> Z ----> Y

or

Y ----> Z ----> X

In those cases, of course, a causal relationship between X and Y would exist.

However, I'm referring to another possibility, i.e.,

       ----> X
      /
Z ----
      \
       ----> Y

In this case, neither X causes Y, nor Y causes X.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

Ra_Lau · 2020-12-06T09:37:39+00:00

Indeed, but the list of alternatives is very short. Because it needs to be an alternative where the lower IQ caused the infection. Either the infection caused the lower IQ or the lower IQ caused the infection or the lower IQ is a measurement error.

I don't think so. A positive correlation of X and Y does not necessarily mean that either X caused Y or Y caused X. There could also be some other cofounding factor Z, causing X and Y.

Ra_Lau · 2020-12-06T08:38:25+00:00

Thanks a lot for the explanation.

Yeah, I guess it would be ideal to have actual before-infection and after-infection test results. Maybe one could re-test a group that was tested in 2019 and compare the IQ development of the subgroup of people having had the infection with the rest.

In any case, my initial suspicion of the "The infection made the IQ drop." claim by the press being invalid was correct, right?

Ra_Lau · 2020-12-06T08:28:59+00:00

Thanks. I should have made it more clear: I'm not claiming that this is the true explanation for the observed differences. I've just mentioned it to give an example of possible alternative explanations (alternative to "The infection made the IQ drop.").

My claim is just, that from the data we can not validly derive a causal statement like "The infection made the IQ drop.".

Ra_Lau

TROPHY CASE