Don't use genAI to approve comments, either. Only use it to flag potentially problematic comments for human review. The harm of people temporarily seeing a problematic comment is far less than the harm of removing comments that shouldn't have been removed.
I'm not sure if it's relevant, but SpamBayes uses a not-so-naive Bayes classification and it has a ham(good) and spam(bad) points. IIRC the usual interface classify them by ham/(ham+spam) and the idea is that if the quotient is bellow 10% or over 90% then it's classified automatically, and in between it goes to a "interesting" bucle for human review. I used it a long time ago, I think I changed the defaults to 1% and 99% that is correct almost all the time and I took a look at the "interesting".
Comments
Don't use genAI to approve comments, either. Only use it to flag potentially problematic comments for human review. The harm of people temporarily seeing a problematic comment is far less than the harm of removing comments that shouldn't have been removed.
I'm not sure if it's relevant, but SpamBayes uses a not-so-naive Bayes classification and it has a ham(good) and spam(bad) points. IIRC the usual interface classify them by ham/(ham+spam) and the idea is that if the quotient is bellow 10% or over 90% then it's classified automatically, and in between it goes to a "interesting" bucle for human review. I used it a long time ago, I think I changed the defaults to 1% and 99% that is correct almost all the time and I took a look at the "interesting".
That's a great idea. And for deep nets you can do the same with probabilities. Thanks!