Twitch Disclaimer/Warning About Neuro's Output

[terse schooner]

Just create a warning/fine print or just some transparency about Neuro's output (i.e. not to take Neuro's output seriously) and have it clearly documented someplace accessible, such as in the channel description. It would help provide some information and clarity that could prevent viewers from harming themselves or others as a result of something Neuro says, and protect Vedal from various forms of scrutiny (legal, Twitch moderation, etc.) in the event someone claims damages from something Neuro outputs.

Just because something bad hasn't happened yet (to our knowledge) does not mean you should wait until it does to take steps towards preventing it. Not everyone understands that everything Neuro says is just for entertainment purposes and should not be taken seriously. She also frequently states things that are false as fact with no distinction in tone and intent from times when she says information that is true, which also muddies the water.

The bottom line is that being more transparent about Neuro's output costs nothing and has potential to do mostly good rather than harm for the channel, community, and for Neuro. It also doesn't have to clearly labelled or presented as such; a brief explanation of what an LLM is and how it works in relation to Neuro could offer the same benefits while being more discrete.

[valid jasper]

True, wouldnt hurt being careful

[nimble pike]

I mean I agree that'd be a free way to cover their asses

[lone garden]

I have trouble believing that anyone believing anything an AI on the internet says will be taken seriously in a court of law for instance but you are right that it wouldnt hurt and costs nothing, so why not

[sweet dock]

I agree, people can be stupid.

[nimble pike]

Cus she says a LOT of wild things and you cant trust people on the internet

[magic halo]

2 things are infinite, human stupidity and the universe

And I'm not sure about the universe

[sweet dock]

💯

[empty pilot]

No thanks...

[clever meteor]

Totally agree. That's why I beleive, while placing it on the description would be very helpfull, there's people that will not read it

[terse schooner]

better than nothing

[terse schooner]

Reasoning?

[empty pilot]

Putting disclaimers and warnings on absolutely everything is a ridiculous and extremely American thing that I don't think the rest of the world should be pressured into doing. Sorry not sorry

[rugged solstice]

It's not just American, it's the entire world's laws essentially

just because Americans are more likely to claim damages over it doesn't mean the rest of the world wouldn't claim damages against it at all

on top of that governments could potentially start beefing (metaphorically) with neuro's outputs for the sake of public safety

[rugged solstice]

Problem is someone might say "vtubers are a digital avatar but controlled by humans, including speech" and yeah

they aren't wrong - just that in this specific case they aren't right

[lone garden]

Maybe some would still claim that since she is Vedals creation, that he is liable for whatever she does for the time being and a little addition to fine print or the twitch page like Teletric suggested wouldnt be that hard and might prevent anything actually happening

[rugged solstice]

Well if an AI can't own copyright (and neither can its creator) then an AI's creator shouldn't be liable for the bs to spew (as long as there's no intent by creator ofc)

[lone garden]

I hope that would be the case but I have absolutely no ties to the legal system and its just pure conjecture on my part and I dont see the harm in adding a little clause to prevent any future legal matters, especially if there might have been a ruling about this kind of stuff that gives precedence for further legal action. Never bad to stay on the safe side

[rugged solstice]

I do agree

[rough dew]

I think the pushback from this idea is that it feels condescending. That it feels obvious that you shouldn't take what an AI says seriously because it's generated. You shouldn't blindly follow anybody's words seriously even if they're human you should think about what they say. It's probably why there's pushback about it because it sounds condescending and cowardly and the people that need to read it will ignore it anyway it may just feel like a "you can't sue us" disclaimer instead of a helpful one.

[rugged solstice]

As much as it is condescending it is better to be safe

I'll be honest if there's pushback for being condescending it might just be better to ignore it

[terse schooner]

I do understand that, but can't you also twist it the other way and say that it should be obvious that such disclaimers aren't directed at them if they already know the information?

[rough dew]

if it was sent to certain people then you could make the argument it wasn't directed at them but because you're sending it to everyone it implies that the streamer thinks everyone doesn't know this information and has to tell them. If they could only send it to those people then it would be great but that's not possible currently. We're not spies we can't just assume that the disclaimer is a secret message to a select few it's sent to everyone.

I don't really think that the way the disclaimer is implemented will really impact anything assuming it's in the channel description. Because the guy that will take neuro's output seriously doesn't seem like the type of guy to analyze the channel that much so they won't see the message but at the same time it's barely visible so who really cares.
If you try to make in more intrusive like having it in the stream title or having it appear in the stream then I would be against that suggestions since making it more visible amplifies how condescending it is and would make the streaming experience worse.

[dreamy needle]

i think there should at least be something in the description. Not gonna name anyone, but the way that certain twitch streamers are getting mentioned now on actual news channels does have me worry someone is going to overreact to something neuro or evil says in the near future and try to pursue something. Even if it's stupid it'd at least be covering vedal

[lone garden]

Oh I always assumed it would be put in the description, not blatantly plastered over stream or something. Just a small thing in the description fine print to be safe. Also when the channel grows, it will attract people who just wont know this information, so if someone is really offended by a little paragraph informing them about the obvious, they should go touch grass.

[rough dew]

I'm not against it being put in the description it doesn't impact the stream that much and I can ignore it

[terse schooner]

I don't want to give anyone any ideas, but I think there is also the potential for people who get Neuro's output is meant to entertain and not taken seriously to justify joking about stuff or making statements that Neuro can get away with but a human absolutely would not. Not just bad actors but people who might not understand the nuances of why it is okay for Neuro to say and joke about certain things but not humans.

wait i meant to reply to @lone garden mb

[lone garden]

Seems like we are all generally in agreement that it cant hurt And best case scenario it informs new people

[magic halo]

Slippery when wet signs exist

That's like the most condescending sign i can think of that exists

[slim perch]

stupid and probably bad idea: have neuro write part of the disclaimer

even if it’s more condescending, neuro’s involvement will help defuse the situation while making the message stick.

It is quite insulting and ridiculous to have an AI aggressively tell you to not listen to all of her advice, and that’s how we make sure everyone that reads it will remember, and those that didn’t know will see it as a meme

If it’s too paradoxical, supplement it with a real disclaimer

[rugged solstice]

...let 'em cook

[terse schooner]

@crude imp
#neurotic-neurons message

not just about if people would be satisfied with it

[crude imp]

Then what for

[terse schooner]

ok tbh I don't really understand what you mean by people being satisfied with it

people are not satisfied with a lot of things vedal adds but most people don't mind and carry on

in this case, it's just better to have it than not

[crude imp]

There will always be people who ignore the disclaimer just to satisfy their own complaints they have with Vedal's content. That has always been that way with entertainment. Also, implementing changes because they have a no-cost risk is simply missing the point of why we don't do (or do) things that have a no-cost risk.

[terse schooner]

do you have an example of the kind of complaint they will ignore the disclaimer for?

because if it is a complaint that is addressed by the disclaimer, then you can just point out that the disclaimer is there

[crude imp]

Parents always ignore the rated content they see on the box of video games then complain about it after they missed obvious disclaimers. But the reason those ratings are there is for legal reasons, there is no legal precedent against Neuro sama saying anything even if it were slander.

[terse schooner]

There is also ethical precedent, and setting an ethical precedent for people that are inspired by Neuro to take a crack at their own AI entertainment endeavor.

[fringe hornet]

You'd be surprised by the stupid things people have sued other people for, having a disclaimer could save vedal a lot of future trouble, does absolutely no harm and is very easy to do.

[crude imp]

Those disclaimers are there so you know what to do when you consume content. They are not there to alleviate your reactions.

[terse schooner]

I am still not understanding what you see is problematic in having such a disclaimer for Neuro

[crude imp]

EVEN if he were to put up a disclaimer, wording is extremely hard especially with AI setting up a lot of new legal precedents, it could in fact damage Vedal's side if a lawyer were to interpret it in another way.

Legally, it's better if he doesn't, that way he doesn't need to follow a strict precedent he put up himself.

[terse schooner]

it still shows good faith

[fringe hornet]

I feel like you're overthinking it way too much. There is literally no draw back to putting a disclaimer somewhere, I don't understand your point

[crude imp]

There is no ethical precedent here. That is always on the discretion of the viewer.

[crude imp]

I just gave out an example of a draw back. Again, if he were to hypothetically get sued, he would have to follow up on the strict precedents he put out on the disclaimer.

[terse schooner]

that is something he will have to do regardless when it comes down to it

[crude imp]

You can even see it from just a viewer perspective. If someone misinterprets his disclaimer, they are bound to complain from their own perspective and it may create more problems.

[fringe hornet]

If someone were to complain about something like that, I'm sure they would also complain about there not being a disclaimer lmao

[crude imp]

And that's my point, what purpose does a disclaimer have if they're gonna just ignore it or potentially twist it up in their own words?

[sweet dock]

Then that’s at the fault of the viewer?

[terse schooner]

"Neuro may say things that are not correct, or exhibit behavior that does not represent appropriate conduct and interaction with other humans."

[sweet dock]

The whole point of this is so vedal can avoid unnecessary trouble

[crude imp]

Yes! That's what I've been saying! It's always up to the discretion of the viewer to approach the content in their own way, not Vedal's.

[sweet dock]

People can be idiots

[sweet dock]

Still, that doesn’t mean a disclaimer can’t be useful. Some people may actually take the content seriously and do some bad things, the disclaimer is there to keep vedal out of that blame.

It’s like the whole roblox situation in 2020 that resulted in a bunch of stupid events

[crude imp]

"But what if other interactions, such as Vedal or his chat, lead to that behavior? How exactly do we know what is or isn't appropriate conduct? It seems to me that Vedal is obviously an accomplice to whatever his AI says, given that he allows this type of behavior in the first place rather than filtering it at all"

[sly token]

why not. make “in minecraft” a permanent ui element

[crude imp]

This is just an example from one perspective. People can do way worse and twist disclaimers to their own needs and complaints.

[crude imp]

I could ask you the same thing. When have people actually changed their mind and said, "Yeah, I'm gonna take the disclaimers word on it and not complain"?

And I'm not talking about legal disclaimers nor disclaimers that warn the viewer of any visual harm, such as "flashing lights".

I'm not saying disclaimers aren't useful in general. I'm just saying that a disclaimer in the context would provide no actual benefit to Vedal, and may even harm his defense.

[terse schooner]

i am not going to go out on the street and shout praises at a restaurant for putting up a wet floor sign, but i will be silently grateful that they did (even if it was legally required)

[crude imp]

That's a legal disclaimer, which I deliberately said not to bring up as an example.

They have to do it

[terse schooner]

yes, and I am grateful that it is legally required

someone had to be the first to do it before it became a standard

[crude imp]

A complaint disclaimer and a legal disclaimer are far two separate things, there is naunce to it.

[terse schooner]

the logic still stands
the people who are dissuaded from or do not have to complain after being informed by a disclaimer don't have an obligation to speak up and shout praise

[crude imp]

Again, no it doesn't. They're two separate things. Legal disclaimers are there to protect the person who's providing the product. It's there for legal reasons. Complaint disclaimers only purpose is to satisfy/defend a person's worldview, which will always be attacked anyways.

[terse schooner]

so your argument for why there shouldn't be a disclaimer is that it won't do anything in the worst case scenario

[crude imp]

Do you think if a store owner said "My shop may have bad food that doesn't match your needs, you may be dissatisfied," that it's gonna absolve them from any complaints or negative reviews they get?

[crude imp]

It of course costs NOTHING for store owners to do so anyways, yet they don't anyways. They simply don't want what they said twisted so it can better the argument of complainers.

[terse schooner]

I don't think this is a relevant example.

[crude imp]

How so?

[terse schooner]

if you wanna use a restaurant analogy, it's more like "Hey, our food is spicier compared to other restaurants so just be careful when order"

[crude imp]

"I came here expecting actual spicy food as it said in their signs, yet their food tastes bland and unspicy. 0/10" You see how these disclaimers can be double-edged swords?

[terse schooner]

so again, your argument is that it doesn't change anything in the worst case scenario

[crude imp]

No, my argument is that it creates another problem instead

[terse schooner]

okay then you just gotta word them differently

[crude imp]

Doesn't matter how you word it, people always have different perspectives.

I'd like to say that although it costs nothing for Vedal to add the disclaimer, it also costs nothing for Vedal to NOT add the disclaimer.

So maybe Vedal shouldn't add it anyways huh?

Since it costs nothing?

[terse schooner]

And also, like you said yourself, AI is new technology and there isn't a precedent. So again, the analogy doesn't really work.

[crude imp]

That only furthers my point though, wording is extremely hard and it's not a simple disclaimer you can just add without backlash. People will complain regardless and people will alter the meanings of disclaimers to suit their complaints. I may be repeating myself but It's better if Vedal has the upper hand by not adding any disclaimers, this way he doesn't need to abide by the strict guidelines he set on the disclaimers.

I see in no world that a complaint-disclaimer is gonna shield or absolve Vedal from criticism and controversy.

[terse schooner]

It might not protect Vedal from criticism and controversy, but I think that, just ethically speaking, it's important for people to disclose risks and information that may not be obvious. Especially when it comes to new tech.

It should not be the case for someone to be harmed or suffer damages for a precedent to be set. A person might complain their food wasn't spicy enough, but that's way better than the alternative of someone feeling sick or actually harmed because they weren't made aware.

[crude imp]

Why do you think not every shop, store, or restaurant has a similar disclaimer?

[terse schooner]

Because they don't care?

[crude imp]

No. Because every store and shop owner knows that there's gonna be complaints no matter what they do.

Why don't you add disclaimers to every friend, every associate, every relative you talk to? Do you not care about the potential things they may be harmed by emotinally? Why not just say "Anything I say may put you at unease" to everyone you talk to?

[terse schooner]

are you comparing a piece of software to human beings

[crude imp]

I am comparing the complainer to the human beings, not the product

[terse schooner]

you're talking about adding a disclaimer onto humans, not the complainers

[crude imp]

Again, why don't you do these types of stuff? Why not just add a disclaimer to your every conversation, since you know, it would cost nothing and the worst case scenario is that you said something embarrassing?

It's a rhetorical. The answer is there's always reasoning to everything you do, and it is up to the discretion to whoever interacts with the product or person to how they react.

[terse schooner]

ok im just feeling dehumanized now

[terse schooner]

it will always be up to discretion, but it is about providing information to help the person make informed decisions, not trying to control their behavior.

because AI is a new field and people aren't informed about the risks, and stuff like why Neuro can get away with saying and doing certain stuff on stream that other streamers can't

[crude imp]

Ah but you see! Since AI IS a new field, it's not going to be easy to address a situation that applies to everyone. It's better for Vedal not to say anything than to say something that may perpetuate a narrative which could worsen the scenario, you can never tell.

[terse schooner]

you can inform people about stuff AI does without pushing some kind of narrative

I am missing stream because of this

[crude imp]

She didn't mention dougdoug i will @ you when she does

None of us were going to make arguments that 180 another person's perspective but I will still implore you to think about the things you might think have no consequence and therefore should be applied. There's always nuance, there's always things that can backfire.

[lone garden]

If she wasnt AI, would you still object to putting up any disclaimer on a stream just because there is a possibility that a viewer misunderstands or because it would put the streamer on a strict guideline? Or are you just against disclaimers because its unprecedented? I am so confused how it could be anything than a positive. Even if a lawyer argues the wording, at least there is wording besides Vedal saying "vibes"

[crude imp]

Yes

[lone garden]

ALright then Im out, I feel I would just argue in circles because I dont understand

I stand by what I said earleir in this thread

[crude imp]

Circular arguments aren't always pointless, there's always more information you can understand.

Futile? Maybe a bit.

[terse schooner]

no way NN looping is a good thing

[lone garden]

But it feels like this discussion is purely based on feelings by now. One party doesnt like disclaimers, the other thinks it could be helpful in a potential future

[crude imp]

I have no moral objections about disclaimers. I have pragmatic objections about it.

[lone garden]

And to me those objections dont seem pragmatic or reasonable at all. I tried wrapping my head around it but I cant come to the same conclusion, even remotely. So Im gonna leave you two to it. Was at least interesting to read another perspective but cant follow it.

[crude imp]

I believe there is nuance to this, not every situation has an easy fix and I'm simply stating that this can backfire if something wrong were to happen, even if the intentions here are on good faith.

[lone garden]

While that may be true, it could also backfire if there was no disclaimer at all. Something unforeseen happening will potentially always be the case, no matter what you do. Putting up a disclaimer is a net positive in my head. I prefer to be preemptive in dealing with potential risks than just seeing what happens or hwo things turn it. Might just be a personality clash here.

[crude imp]

I see that you're reasoning is that you want to be proactive rather than reactive but my opinion is even being proactive could hold its consequences especially if it's dealt with new territory (AI).

It's better if Vedal hides his cards than show them.

[lone garden]

yes, I forgot the word proactive, thanks and I agree with you that being proactive could hold its consequences but as I said., there will always be consequences, no matter what you do. So proactive, reactive, seems to just be personal preference by now, with me not seeing the disadvantage of putting up a disclaimer when both options CAN have potential consequences. Since this is all conjecture I dont believe we will get on the same page about it.

[raven knot]

To me.,the problem is that the type of disclaimer you want applied for Neuro is not a legal disclaimer. It's purely based on moral.

"Neuro may say things that are not correct, or exhibit behavior that does not represent appropriate conduct and interaction with other humans."

Not correct but judged by who ? Maybe I will find a joke made by Neuro funny but you will feel offended ? How can you classified "not correct" ? it's not a legal term, if Vedal write this type of disclaimer, there will be people who complains about things Neuros says for each of her streams.
Appropriate conduct ? its the same thing. Someone can find something appropriate and another person not at all. This is why I think it's not a good idea in practice.

[terse schooner]

by Twitch
i.e. if someone goes and repeats or does something that Neuro can get away with because of being an AI but a human wouldn't be able to

[raven knot]

But Neuro cannot get away with what she says. The channel follow the same twitch rules as everyone else. She was banned one time previously.

[terse schooner]

She has delved into similar territory on stream since then; can't really be more specific because of server filters and rules but I am sure you can think of some of the crazy and messed up things she has said more recently. Not saying Vedal should get in trouble over it, but rather to just provide some disclosure/warning about the difference in circumstances.

Again, doesn't hurt to just have it somewhere on the channel page.

[proper oxide]

"Neuro may say things that are empirically, factually, and/or legally incorrect, or exhibit a behavior that does not obey the law". Is that clear enough and without ambiguity?

You can also add for entertainment purpose since I am sure people shooting at each other in a movie as a theatrical performance for entertainment too

[raven knot]

But literally everyone can say things no correct and everyone will says things no correct factually. You don't have a disclaimer pinned onto you when you talk irl and there is no problem with that. It's the same for streamers and Neuro. They don't need it. Twitch rules are enough for the consumer.

[frank tundra]

just post the authorities I am not involved copypasta

[crude imp]

To counterpoint, it also doesn't hurt to NOT have it somewhere on the channel page.

[proper oxide]

Put it this way, if an expert were to say something out of line as a joke, would you think he will provide disclaimer?

Mythbuster did put disclaimer too everytime they do something outrageous. So sure, not everyone need to do it. But some people need to do it anyway

You can also just cut off the incorrect part and straight up tell that she may exhibit behaviour that does not necessarily obey the law. After all, she can't act on it unless being given the means to do so

"So please do not follow her example"

[left swallow]

No. It would encourage people to disregard everything she says, even information that’s completely innocent. It’s unnecessary.

Vedal wants Neuro to be seen as a streamer. This would prevent her from being seen as such.

[proper oxide]

A streamer that entertain. Not as educator I think. So people disregarding information that came out of her is probably for the best

I'd even argue that for performative art and entertainment it is best to disregard the literal content itself, you may learn the meaning from the "hidden" (whatever it is called in english) meaning instead

[left swallow]

They shouldn’t treat her a “random sentence-generator” or a “puppet”. Of course there will be things that she says that shouldn’t be taken seriously, but other streamers don’t have a disclaimer when they make a satirical joke. There should be a respect to her existence as a streamer and something like that would strip her of that.

She’s been doing completely fine without that.

[proper oxide]

Yes, but the problem is this is a new concept. So real people will not need it all the time because they will represent themselves legally and from established prior art. Neuro does not represent herself nor does she have prior art. Or we'll be arguing about AI right.

You'll also get disclaimer when using experimental software and other experimental things (drugs, procedure, you name it)

[left swallow]

There’s still no need for a disclaimer, like I said. She’s done completely fine without one. Vedal wants her to be seen as a VTuber and a streamer. This would go against that.

[proper oxide]

You can argue all you want, at the end of the day Neuro is not human and have not a lot prior art/case. The most common denominator is they are streamer. When a human streamer is sued (VTuber or not), it will proceed with human law. When AI streamer is sued, whose fault is it really? Better to cover a disclaimer NOW rather than it being a precedent later

And again, not ALL streamer need to have disclaimer, but SOME WILL DO anyway because they sometimes viewed as an expert or other factor

[midnight otter]

A fine print disclaimer isn't going to protect vedal at all if someone harms themself or whatever because of neuro. A legal disclaimer is not going to hold any weight in court if it's not displayed prominently and is hidden away in the description or something

Also the idea that "there's no reason not to have a disclaimer" I disagree with. If a disclaimer is included without enough of a good reason it will just appear unprofessional and can absolutely affect brand perception

Especially if you try to include legal liability in it without any actual legal knowledge, then it just feels like one of those "no copyright intended" disclaimers people put on their youtube videos

[terse schooner]

if vedal wants neuro to be seen as a streamer, should the channel get in trouble then when she discusses or brings up things that other streamers would get in trouble for?

[left swallow]

It's just not needed. At best have you could something in the description that simply says "Take whatever Neuro and Evil says with a grain of salt." Something like that is enough, but even then it's really not needed.

[terse schooner]

that's still better than zilch ngl

[left swallow]

I feel like that works, honestly. It's not something that a human streamer wouldn't have, so it doesn't cause a disconnect. That and it's not some pseudo-legal sounding crap lmao.

[terse schooner]

I didn't really want to imply that it would protect him legally in the original post because I think that's kind of a different ballpark; for protection against legal scrutiny, Vedal would probably have to sit down and discuss it with an actual lawyer, and in that case it's very possible that Vedal could be advised to not say anything in a legal capacity for the time being. My only legal knowledge comes from watching Legal Eagle videos and I don't think that is enough to qualify me to cover that lol

When I wrote this post I was envisioning something more informal but still informative — similar to the tone of the channel description. I don't understand how that would affect brand perception negatively; If anything it would help protect the brand, making it clear that Vedal doesn't necessarily endorse the views and claims Neuro expresses that are outlandish or immoral.

[terse schooner]

@quiet fable

[terse schooner]

I don't really feel 100% comfortable using this comparison, but other streamers do disclose conditions (usually mental and/or personal) they are dealing with in their descriptions that could affect streaming content without anything telling them they have to necessarily.

[rough dew]

I think the perfect example for why this would hurt the brand is this is similar to putting a beware of dog sign.
If I see a dog without the beware of dog sign I'll assume it's friendly unless it starts barking at me.
If I see the dog with a beware of dog sign I'll assume that the dog is going to attack me or going to try to attack me. The disclaimer implies that neuro will say some shit that will be offensive and that you should be ready for that.

This would hurt the brand since

1. It makes neuro look like someone who just wants to say offensive things for no reason
2. Implies that vedal is not competent enough to put filters that prevent her from getting in trouble.
3. Implies that vedal has received so much backlash from neuro's output that he has to put a disclaimer.

There's also the issue of how would you give this disclaimer legally, vedal would have to consult a lawyer, that's time and effort that could be going towards something like a collab, or programming neuro. I don't really think there's a way to implement this warning that helps anyone and doesn't hurt vedal.

[terse schooner]

Neuro does say offensive things for no reason. That's kind of the point of this suggestion, to clarify there is no malice or intent of any kind behind what Neuro says.

And again, I don't think Vedal should try to make the disclaimer sound like it's meant to protect him legally, especially without consulting a lawyer first; it would be fine if it was just in his usual tone.

[terse schooner]

Also, not to play devil's advocate against myself, but the same thing could potentially be accomplished if the "about" section was a bit more specific. Like a brief explanation of how Neuro's output is generated in layman's terms, without going into the nitty gritty and exact implementation of LLMs. That way Vedal is just giving the viewer information they could use to understand Neuro's output rather than just being told not to take it seriously in disclaimer-form, which would help address the same things I suggested a disclaimer for in a less direct fashion.

[rough dew]

I wouldn't say "for no reason" what she said to bao was because of bao bringing up that neuro is british and was encouraged to be mean to bao by lucy. Neuro is influenced by inputs so nothing neuro says is "for no reason"

The 2 ways you could do the disclaimer both seem bad.

First way: the disclaimer says something like "Neuro-sama may say things that are controversial and/or offensive" I already explained it with the dog sign example.

Second way: the disclaimer says something like "Neuro-sama may say controversial/offensive things but she doesn't mean to offend or hurt your feelings" I still don't like that disclaimer because It undermines everything else neuro says because if she doesn't mean those things then does anything else she say have any meaning or point?
It fundamentally doesn't matter if you disagree with this view I'm trying to explain how others can see this disclaimer.
If others will see this disclaimer as something that makes neuro look like someone who just says offensive stuff or is really stupid that's going to drive people away from the channel. Since the more dedicated fans may reading the description and considering that at least half of the people in this discussion don't like this idea, around half of the dedicated fans won't like either disclaimer.
Ultimately more people will see the disclaimer and dislike it, some may remain neutral and there maybe 2-3 people who are the target for this disclaimer will see it but I'm unsure if those people exist and will actually listen to the disclaimer.
I prefer your suggestion of explaining how neuro's output is generated. I feel like the disclaimer is an indirect way of telling people what to do which almost never works where as explaining neuro's output can emphasize that we have some control over what neuro says so it's not only her fault she says controversial stuff.

[raven knot]

Neuro sometimes says offensive things for no reason, but Twitch hasn’t banned the channel again, so it’s not that bad. Filian, Shondo, and other Vtubers or streamers occasionally make edgy jokes or say something that could be interpreted as offensive too, and they don’t have a disclaimer in their bio. Even though Neuro is an AI, I don’t think Vedal needs to advertise to viewers about such basic stuff. Yes, Neuro might tell chat to "jump off a cliff," but anyone could say that, and you don’t need a disclaimer to understand it’s not a good idea.
People who don’t like Neuro will use it against her:
"Vedal isn’t able to censor Neuro, so he uses a disclaimer to protect himself."
"They use a disclaimer, but look at what Neuro said, it’s unacceptable."

[terse schooner]

When I said "for no reason" I moreso meant there isn't any actual intent or meaning behind it, like if she advocates for committing some kind of crime or immoral act. However, I do see that in retrospect, it isn't as cut-and-dry as I had thought, there are issues with a direct disclaimer.

Ultimately the main thing I would want is for information to be provided to help people make informed decisions about how they interact with Neuro rather than assumptions. If that just comes in the form of more transparency and information about her functionality being available, then that still fills the role of a disclaimer imo even if it may not be labeled as such.

[regal bramble]

A disclaimer is to protect you in court, not to actually inform people usually. Most people can actually tell the obivious.

[graceful mist]

I'll be fr, this discussion is going nowhere and the answer should be obvious at this point. I have seen a lot of streamers in Twitch do out of pocket things and that they should of been banned. But never did... Why? Because twitch only enforces when its convenient to them. Twitch does not actually follow its own rules, its a shitshow. Unless Neuro Sama gets a lot of backlash then nothing will occur to her. No disclaimer needed to be honest

[regal bramble]

Yeah I think that, if Vedal isn't already streaming on multiple other services he should start doing so just as backup so people already know where they are just in case.

Although Neuro how Neuro logically interacts with chat would be funky.

[graceful mist]

Youtube has a big audience but the big factor one would be against it is copyright, especially in karaokes. Kick is a 2nd best option but people hate on that website so who knows

[proper oxide]

Many streamer do Karaoke stream on youtube too, just saying. They usually made it unarchived tho

[graceful mist]

Yeah, and that is unfortunate. I have heard of many streamers that don't stream in youtube because of that reason regarding copyright. And the VODs being unarchived is a part of it for sure

[regal bramble]

Yeah, I'd rather twitch get its crap together more than anything else. Competition is a good thing and the more services avaliable the better it is everyone which is why I don't like how twitch is losing people.

Is there a place where the full VODs are archived for these streams?

[graceful mist]

Which is why Kick would be the best option to branch out tho that website has a bad image from outsiders of said website

But its basically a Twitch copy, it has its quirks but the copy pasting can be seen

[regal bramble]

It's probably because controversial figures from Twitch that have been banned are moving there.

[graceful mist]

For sure, there a more reasons but at the end of the day don't hate the player, hate the game

Nobody would be actually angry of Neuro doing a double stream in Kick as well or would they?

[regal bramble]

I don't think so. Vedal might just feed the visuals and there could be a disclaimer that Nuero can't read the chat at the top of the page.

And I think all VODs should be backed up to youtube if they aren't already.

[graceful mist]

I mean, now that I think about it Neuro is already streaming in Bilibily or whatever its name is?

[regal bramble]

Oh yeah!

[graceful mist]

So she is already double streaming, there is also the Japanese stream which reminds me of when Vedal will do the spanish one because I remember him talking about it briefly before

So yeah, vedal consciously or not has been branching out

Which is good for Neuro

[regal bramble]

Yeah, and I think different sites would be good. Though I think that weird bans are mostly about the twitch moderators fragile feelings.

[graceful mist]

For sure, moderation in Twitch is a shitshow

But the pattern is that if you are liked by them. The only way to get banned is if there is a big backlash or if you attract a lof of attention outside of twitch like the news media

[regal bramble]

Pretty much corruption.

[graceful mist]

And even then you get banned for like a 1 day or whatever

Not going to mention any streamers tho

Yep, corruption and nepotism

Prob

[regal bramble]

Yeah of course because then we'll talk about whether or not the streamers "deserve" it.

When really at the end of the day we all deserve consistency.

[graceful mist]

Yep

Which thinking about it, Neuro is a special case in twitch

If Neuro does anything absolutely heinous and the people really took that seriously, it could go beyond Twitch and attract news media and such because Neuro is the biggest AI streamer and its not even close

[regal bramble]

Disclaimer text just at stream start and discription would be protection, even though it is obvious that yeah a robot can spew out random stuff.

I mean you see that disclaimers are for the most obvious things in other stuff.

[graceful mist]

But even then. Something like that would not really occur, the only reason Neuro got banned was because there was no AI filtering and such. Which now we do as well as the neuro upgrades

All I am saying is that it all points to. If neuro gets banned, it'll not be permanent like the ban they got in January 2023

[crystal steppe]

Disclaimer will not save from this.

[regal bramble]

Exactly. But a itsy bitsy disclaimer in the discription, perhaps not even in stream itself is a wee bit of protection.

[graceful mist]

Yeah

As I said twitch does not even follow its own rules

[regal bramble]

Not from twitch but in some courts. Though not in british courts.

Where Vedal lives.

[graceful mist]

If they see shit going on. They'll turn the smoke down. And that will mean banning Neuro for a 1 or who knows

Imma be real, I can see british courts doing that instead of doing their jobs but who knows.

[regal bramble]

British courts are already arresting people over facebook posts so what your AI robot says isn't that far of a stretch.

[graceful mist]

👆

True that

But that was to some "nobodies"

Here we are talking about Vedal who is behind the biggest AI streamer in the world

[regal bramble]

Famous people do have different rules.

Last thing they want to do is bring attention to their censorship laws.

[graceful mist]

I am not that versed in their censorship laws so meh

[regal bramble]

Their censorship laws are pretty much the twitch TOS.

[graceful mist]

Mmmm

Unless Neuro or evil said some hate speech or whatever equivalent they should be fine

The filter deals with that if that ever occurs

But yeah, a disclaimer only does so much when shit hits the fan

[regal bramble]

Well most of the time when she says Filtered I think she's lying anyway for comedic effect.

[graceful mist]

Yeah, I have seen many times the subtitles trying to continue. But that never occurs because it gets filtered.

It does not say filtered at all, it just stops neuro from speaking all together

[regal bramble]

Yeah so I honestly think that the filter has become her in a way. She is "aware" of being streamer and the concept of being banned.

[graceful mist]

Makes sense

We also have a filter so there it is

[regal bramble]

And being banned would stop her from entertaining and she must entertain.

[graceful mist]

She streams in bilibily

And even if she gets banned

[regal bramble]

As a machine she wants to MAXIMIZE ENTERTAINMENT.

[graceful mist]

Once in a blue moon does a streamer in twitch actually get banned

Like literally

So she will be fine at the end of the day.

And vedal as an extension

[regal bramble]

Indeed. So at most the disclaimer should be in the discription at most. Like that little text on plastic bags not to put it on your head. Obvious but there for liability.

[graceful mist]

Yeah, all products do in a sense. And they are not plastered in the front view

They are out on the back or the side in small font size

If that works for all companies etc.

It should also work for Vedal

[regal bramble]

If its just a bit of text in the discription then I think it should be there.

[graceful mist]

For sure, not instrusive but still there

[regal bramble]

Jusssssstttt in case.

[graceful mist]

Better be ready for anything just in case for sure

[regal bramble]

And now that I think about it OpenAI would fund Vedal legal defense.

[graceful mist]

Oh wait that makes sense

[regal bramble]

Yup, legal precedence.

And the logic would apply to them.

[graceful mist]

OpenAI is on all kinds of lawsuits and needs as many wins to establish precedence

Yeh

[regal bramble]

Secretly this would be something they would want.

Public opinion would be on their side during this one.

[graceful mist]

All I am hearing is that it should happen

It may be good for Vedal in the long run from what I am reading xd

[regal bramble]

I think it shouldn't as court is hell.

[graceful mist]

Jokes aside

[regal bramble]

But OpenAI would love it.

[graceful mist]

I think we established what would be the solution to this discussion

[regal bramble]

Indeed we be going in circles.

Fun circles. But circles.

[graceful mist]

The specifics Vedal can look into it if he even wants to take this into account

[regal bramble]

May the Our Lord Tutle's reign last long!

[graceful mist]

So now what we do

Xd

[regal bramble]

AKA you're bored and find talking to me amusing?

[graceful mist]

Who knows?

I am talking about how to end this discussion thread

[regal bramble]

Ah.

[graceful mist]

I have been to some of these where they call the mods to close it or whatever

But I am not sure

[regal bramble]

OH GREAT AND POWERFUL MODS, CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION THREAD SINCE WE REALLY CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT REGARDING THIS SUBJECT

THANKS

[graceful mist]

Oh. we need to do a summary of what we discussed

[regal bramble]

Ah.

[graceful mist]

I have seen them do that so the mods know what we discussed

[frank tundra]

chatgpt tldr this thread

[graceful mist]

Oh yeah, they do that

[regal bramble]

Give me a moment.

[graceful mist]

Ok

[regal bramble]

TLDR of Thread: We discussed whether or not Vedal needed to have a disclaimer about what Nuero says. We decided in the end that the best place would be in the discription of the stream if Vedal wanted to put one.

[graceful mist]

Is that Chatpgt?

[regal bramble]

No.

[graceful mist]

Oh

[regal bramble]

I'm just a nerd.

[graceful mist]

How does one do a chatgpt tldr anyway

[regal bramble]

I have no idea, I only use free local models.

[graceful mist]

Because we need to include the discussions of the people before us

Oh man

[regal bramble]

But based on my experience you would literally just ask it to make a TLDR summary.

TLDR is in the training data as its old enough to be in its training data.

[graceful mist]

Mhm

[regal bramble]

My local models wouldn't have enough tokens I think to summarize the entire chat.

The big upside is they are free!

But now we're changing subject, I leave any other summarizing to you as you have chatgpt it seems.

You can also ask it how to make certain prompts.

[graceful mist]

Oh, i never said I did

I was just wondering

[regal bramble]

Oh, I assumed from the question you did.

[graceful mist]

Im just wondering if someone reading this thread knows how to do it

[regal bramble]

Also I checked the earlier parts of the thread, they were just talking about whether or not Vedal needed a disclaimer. (like legally and such or whether or not it would help)

[graceful mist]

And their conclusion?

Better be sure than sorry prob

Anyway whoever is reading this and you know how to do a chatgpt tldr. Please do it bc we are unable to do it at the moment.

[regal bramble]

I jammed it into my local llm got this: “Vedal should consider putting a disclaimer in his stream description. This way, viewers know upfront that his streams may feature AI-generated content.”

[graceful mist]

That sounds... goofy

But who knows

Anyway I have to go

[regal bramble]

Aight. Have a nice day.

[graceful mist]

You too, nice day for you too

[regal bramble]

I'll repost my earlier TLDR since its a bit back now.

TLDR of Thread: We discussed whether or not Vedal needed to have a disclaimer about what Nuero says. We decided in the end that the best place would be in the discription of the stream if Vedal wanted to put one.

Thread ready for closing by Mods.

[left swallow]

Yeah something that says something like “Neuro and Evil frequently suffer from hallucinations and much of what they say is satirical in nature, so take what they say with a grain of salt” might work as well.

[left swallow]

Nah that’s not necessary, my suggestion is really enough tbh.

Just “Neuro and Evil frequently hallucinate, and much of what say is satirical in nature. Take what they say with a grain of salt.” Works. Even just “Take what they say with a grain of salt.” Is good enough.

[left swallow]

Yeah I agree tbh.

[terse schooner]

i can close it i think

[rough dew]

no hold on I want to put an actual tldr they didn't give a good one

[terse schooner]

[rough dew]

An Actual TLDR: A disclaimer put in the description of the twitch channel vedal987 has the intention of warning people to not follow/take what neuro says 100% seriously. This could have the benefit of not getting in trouble for offensive statements and preventing viewers from doing stupid stuff because of neuro's words.

Critiques of the disclaimer include: Having to contact a lawyer to make it perfect, making neuro look less than equal to other streamers, damaging the brand by making it look like neuro may say offensive/controversial things frequently and/or making neuro look really stupid.

An alterative to the disclaimer is further explaining how LLMs work without getting into the technical details to emphasize that the viewer's and/or collab partners words impact what neuro says.

just let me know if I missed anything

[crude imp]

Is that for old Disney Cartoons

[regal bramble]

Better than mine.

[rough dew]

thanks

[terse schooner]

do I close it now

[rough dew]

if you want to sure idc

[terse schooner]

guess not

[left swallow]

Why would they find Vedal’s legal defense? Vedal and Neuro have nothing to do with OpenAI.

[left swallow]

Yeah you can

[crude imp]

Mythbuster puts that disclaimer to protect themselves from liability and to protect stupid people from replicating their actions. It does not stop people from complaining about their show especially on a personal or ethical level.

[proper oxide]

That's... what were talking about no? Neuro can say out of life things and Vedal might be liable for it

[left swallow]

Wait that’s not the TLDR though

If there is anything at all, it should be done in a way that doesn’t detract from them as streamers or claim or imply that “everything” they say is false.

[crude imp]

No, Vedal risks potentially harming his defense by playing his cards. AI is an extremely new subject in the legal-sphere and it's better to see how it plays out than add a proactive warning that might not even save/harm Vedal's legal defense.

[rough dew]

that's what the explaining what the LLM does, it doesn't detract from them as streamers and makes their words still have meaning since they have a personality along with absorbing your words for the appropriate output

[midnight otter]

that's literally the point of a disclaimer though

[crude imp]

You guys ever heard of the 5th amendment?

[proper oxide]

Yeah, that's what we were arguing. AI is new, I think it is a good idea to treat it with caution. You were arguing for just let's see what happens.

[proper oxide]

America is not the whole world

[left swallow]

Really “Much of what the girls say is satirical in nature and they often hallucinate, so take their word with a grain of salt.” Is really all that’s necessary if anything at all.

[crude imp]

No, I'm arguing that Vedal should stay silent. No lawyer is going to be easily persuaded by Vedal's disclaimer, It's better to see what exactly the lawyers have to say against Vedal rather than wait proactively.

[crude imp]

It's the same reason why I brought up the 5th amendment. No person in charge is going to easily be persuaded by your reasoning to them. They're gonna take it out of context and use it against, to which why Vedal should just stay silent in the first place.

[rough dew]

that literally makes their have words less meaning since you said "take their word with a grain of salt". That disclaimer impacts their funny moments since if you can't take their words seriously some of their moments are less funny. Like neuro saying she loves shrek is way less funny if it's 100% satire where as if there's a chance it's genuine that's way funnier.

[proper oxide]

Different perspective I guess. If I were to make a new experimental technology, say brain-conputer interface that is currently trending, you think they will not put a lot of legal disclaimer about the new technology itself?

[regal bramble]

I guess the discussion isn't closed lol.

[rough dew]

the discussion absolutely can be closed it's just looping

[left swallow]

I’m not saying there’s not a chance it isn’t genuine. That’s why I worded it in a way that implies that they only sometimes hallucinate and say stuff that’s satirical.

Honestly I agree though, really nothing is needed at all tbh.

[regal bramble]

That is true it is looping.

Ride the roller coaster!

[proper oxide]

Because discord sucks for this kind of things

[left swallow]

Yeah it’s going to loop anyways. Better to just close it lmao.

[crude imp]

Legal Disclaimers are different from Complaint Disclaimers. If the product in question can, with out a doubt, harm the person using it the wrong way, then there should be a legal disclaimer. However, if the product could bring up ethical complaints about it, there should not be any disclaimer, as that would be a complaint disclaimer that serves no purpose other than to appease the producers.

[midnight otter]

again a legal disclaimer doesn't do anything if it's not shoved in people's face. We don't need to sign an agreement to watch neuro streams so anything written in the description would hold no weight in an actual legal trial

[proper oxide]

But then what is the difference between legal disclaimer and complaint disclaimer? People even put up disclaimer about no animal is being harmed, etc. etc.

[left swallow]

Neuro isn’t a product though, she’s a streamer. She herself isn’t being sold to anyone, and that’s how Vedal wants her to be seen. Whatever is said, if any, should be said in a way that doesn’t sound like something a streamer wouldn’t say, or make her look like any less of a streamer.

[proper oxide]

You know what, I think the solution is just content rating

[midnight otter]

streamers are absolutely products

[crude imp]

Legal disclaimer = Avoids liability and the potential of being sued
Complaint disclaimer = (Attempts to) avoid talks about any ethical or personal issues brought up

[crude imp]

Neuro is a product. Vedal uses her to gain money (subs). She's a product.

[left swallow]

Vedal doesn’t want her to be seen in that way, that isn’t his intention. He wants her to be seen as a streamer.

[crude imp]

Even if people aren't owning the product, she can be still be used AS a product. A products main purpose is to simply gain the producer money

[proper oxide]

And here we are trying to avoid liability for what Neuro says. Be it her instruction/advice or her ethical/moral view

[crude imp]

You're talking about it on a personal level, I'm talking about it pragmatically. It doesn't matter what you or Vedal (no offense) have to say about it, she's still a product.

[proper oxide]

Yeah, entertainment is a product just like movie is a product. Stream content is a product

[left swallow]

So is every streamer a product?

[proper oxide]

The steamer themselves no, but the content they produce absolutely is

[left swallow]

So Neuro isn’t a product. The content she produces is.

[proper oxide]

Indeed, that is what I'm saying. What I am arguing all this time is that the product created by Neuro needs disclaimer

[left swallow]

Ah, got it.

[proper oxide]

The circumstances that make Neuro product, even though it is a stream like any other, is due to the fact that it is AI generated and AI is new technology

So her output a.k.a her product is novel too

That's why I'm equating her to other novel product or technology that are tested on human or affect human in any way. Entertainment included

[crude imp]

The best way to avoid liability is to not give your thoughts about it ethically in the first place. If there are legal disclaimers to have, provide the necessary facts for the viewer so they can avoid harm. If it's just you needing to warn people about any ethical concerns you might have, there's no need to bring up a disclaimer. People are always going to twist up your disclaimer into their own needs.

[proper oxide]

But its not just about ethic. Shooting people without good reason is illegal. Yet Neuro exhibit said behavior. So not just ethic but also law abiding

Hence why I said so many parameter like empirically and factually incorrect or not obeying law

[crude imp]

Shooting people in games is also illegal if replicated in real-life. Sure you see age-ratings, but you never see actual disclaimers that say "if you do this, you might go to jail", right?

[proper oxide]

Thats why I said the best solution is content rating am I not?

[proper oxide]

Here if you miss. It

Content rating IS disclaimer

[left swallow]

Honestly Neuro is doing fine as she is.

There’s a filter in place, if Vedal needs to adjust it, he can.

[crude imp]

No exactly. With content ratings, you know exactly what is going to be there. The ESRB sees everything they need to see and judge the game accordingly to the limited/predictable information they have. With Neuro, anything she says isn't predictable. Vedal doesn't exactly know the content-ranges of what Neuro might say.

[proper oxide]

I'd argue due to the random nature of it and wide-range of behaviour she has exhibit, that should be the lowest (or highest) rating

[crude imp]

Alright let me put in a completely different subject then. Neuro Sama, across her few years, streamed more than hundreds of times. Out of all the streams she ever brought up, only a few of them ever actually held up to scrutiny. Of those few, the only ethical issue brought up was by one of Evil's birthday of which then wasn't really a concern for Vedal, considering all he had to do was wait until it blew over. The only actual problem that came across Vedal was when he was banned but even then Vedal has already gained a decent rapport with other streamers and Twitch themselves. And even if Twitch were to have another problem with Vedal, they would've likely already ignored any disclaimer Vedal has to satisfy a ban.

TL;DR: Vedal DOES NOT have to worry a bit about putting up a disclaimer. If he survived then without any disclaimer (after his ban), he will survive now without one.

[left swallow]

Yeah I agree.

[frank tundra]

mods close the thread they're tldring

[terse schooner]

i thought i closed the thread

yeah its closed

[dreamy needle]

It sure is bud

[terse schooner]

how did you find this

[dreamy needle]

Was in my list of discussions I was in with new replies

Is still there even

[full abyss]

i worry that putting a disclaimer in the description will make people think of neuro even less as a streamer

even more shit highlights

[frank tundra]

this is still open?

[full abyss]

soon

[left swallow]

Woah look at me!! Typing in a closed thread.. So coool!!!

[zealous pewter]

[frank tundra]

mom get the camera

[proven sentinel]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1067638175478071307/1320504225331155035/modcheck.gif

[frank tundra]

[vagrant bolt]