Where exactly do you see the difference to human editors?

This kind of thing happens everywhere, everyday in TV stations, editorial offices, at publishing companies, radio stations - all kind of media really.

Depending on the political or moral views of the parent organisation or investors, this content censoring/massaging is everyday business and shouldn't shock or surprise you in the slightest.

Exactly!

All of this just smacks of the old, worn-out argument that "it's different because it uses computers!"

Editor is a literal career field, and has been for years and years.

Yeah, no, the writers of a TV show probably aren't random people off the street who are trying to sneak child porn past management. (Or not very often anyway.) There are disputes over how much edginess the writers can get away with, but in terms of the volume of content and adversarial nature of the relationship it seems pretty different?

This is like telling anyone and everyone to write and produce a TV station only for themselves then being surprised when certain illicit content shows up that you don't agree with. So no, it's not like traditional media content censoring (not to the same degree at least), but it is like modern global-scale media content censoring that already deals with hundreds of hours of content every minute (YouTube et al. having to hire moderators to remove CP).

tbf if you're working with software which is context aware enough to usually generate plausible sounding text-responses, training it to usually identify stuff you think is bad is a closely related problem. (Sure, there's still a fine line between "sick fantasy" and "Stephen King novel", but your procedural text generator has to attempt to handle that to not disgust its customers anyway.)

> there's still a fine line between "sick fantasy" and "Stephen King novel"

Surely the important distinction is not the text itself but which character a reader empathises with — the monster or the victim.

(Personally I don’t understand why violent horror as a genre exists, and literally cannot empathise with people who enjoy it. Nonetheless I recognise that enjoyment of horror does not make one a monster).

Thomas Ligotti proposes a theory which I will paraphrase badly as "people who like horror need a horrific reality they can cope with, because the horror of actual existence is something they cannot face". This rather neatly makes those who do not like Horror the insensitive ones, reversing the more conventional view.

There's a bunch of other stuff about The Nightmare of Consciousness and so on in his book The Conspiracy Against the Human Race.

> Personally I don’t understand why violent horror as a genre exists, and literally cannot empathise with people who enjoy it.

What's wrong with it as entertainment?

No matter what the calm and rational part of my mind tries to suggest, the louder emotional part of my mind is shouting the following:

"""You’re entertained by torture and murder of characters who had done nothing deserving of such suffering."""

That part of me wants to continue with a long rant, but by this point my rational self can sit my emotional self down with a nice cup of tea and a biscuit.

Horror stimulates some brains and overstimulates others, just as

Golf stimulates some brains and understimulates others.

Knowing the underlying mechanism does nothing to create empathy.

Sympathy, humility against my own feelings, sure. Not empathy.

> Sure, there's still a fine line between "sick fantasy" and "Stephen King novel"

Not sure how much of a line that is, didn't "It' have an underage sex scene in it? Wouldn't it get banned here, too?

Puritanical?

> AI Dungeon will continue to support other NSFW content, including consensual adult content, violence, and profanity.

Killing people? Perfectly A-OK!

Anything sexual? Oh no no no! The children!

Americans are fucking weird...

They explicitly say they will continue to allow sexual content.

Read the article, it's specifically trying to get rid of CP