{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiddomknoigyksktlpn5zcbt5lyn7sg7r3yjlazj62pogjqasb3vdy",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pgryn3ephfd2xgft23qokfzt/app.bsky.feed.post/3mohwr27ia5x2"
  },
  "path": "/t/proposal-real-time-telemetry-channel-for-ai-safety-filters/176831#post_2",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-17T00:59:15.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.huggingface.co",
  "tags": [
    "AI spam detection",
    "AI triage",
    "(click for more details)"
  ],
  "textContent": "Hmm… I’m assuming this is mainly about Hugging Face Forum moderation. If that’s the intended scope, I think the idea could be made more concrete like this:\n\n* * *\n\nI would frame this less as a general “AI safety filter” proposal and more as a **moderation telemetry / triage layer** for the forum.\n\nThe core idea would be:\n\n> Keep strong anti-spam defenses, but make their false-positive side effects more observable and easier to review.\n\nSo rather than:\n\n> “AI reverses moderation decisions.”\n\nI think the safer version is:\n\n> “AI helps detect likely false-positive candidates, summarizes why they may deserve review, surfaces them to moderators, records the final moderator outcome, and feeds aggregate patterns back into filter tuning.”\n\nThat seems useful because the UX problem is often not only _“my post was blocked.”_ It is also:\n\n  * “I do not know why it was blocked.”\n  * “I do not know whether it is under review.”\n  * “I do not know whether anyone needs to be notified.”\n  * “I do not know whether reposting would make things worse.”\n\n\n\nSo the goal would not be to weaken moderation filters. The goal would be to **keep the filters strong while reducing the user-facing damage from false positives**.\n\nA compact version of the loop might be:\n\nStep | Purpose\n---|---\nModeration-positive event | A post is flagged, hidden, delayed, or queued\nTelemetry record | Store minimal structured metadata about the event\nAI / heuristic triage | Mark it as likely spam, likely false positive, uncertain, or needs review\nModerator surface | Prioritize likely false positives or unusual clusters\nOutcome logging | Record restored / confirmed spam / unresolved\nAggregate feedback | Detect noisy rules, fragile patterns, or regressions after filter changes\n\nThis would not replace existing reporting paths or human moderation. It would complement them by making likely false positives easier to notice.\n\nDiscourse already has adjacent concepts here, such as AI spam detection, AI triage, review queues, automation, webhooks, and scan logs. So the interesting question may be less:\n\n> “Can this exist?”\n\nand more:\n\n> “What is the smallest telemetry loop that would actually help HF Forum moderators, maintainers, and users?”\n\nPossible implementation sketch (click for more details)\n\nSo I think the strongest version of the proposal is:\n\n> **A lightweight observability and triage layer for HF Forum moderation false positives.**\n\nThat is narrower than “real-time telemetry for AI safety filters,” but probably more actionable.\n\nIt would help HF keep strong anti-spam filtering while giving moderators and maintainers better visibility into where legitimate posts are getting caught.",
  "title": "Proposal: Real-time Telemetry Channel for AI Safety Filters"
}