I don't think so. I think they will appear to do a good job because you just won't see all the false positives and biases because it's obviously been moderated/censored.
How do you PM the AI moderator to argue your case for reversing suspension?
There are two rules that make it infinitely easier to moderate/manage a social internet group: no politics, no religion. Done.
I'm not sure what your second point means? People will be happy to converse unknowingly with 'AI'?
The improvements would be in the empowerment, not replacement of human moderators. That is to flag undesired or AI-generated content for further investigation, for example. Surely there will be communities that will try to actually automate it to their own demise as well.
My second point was, crudely, that I believe there to be people who would rather read a good book (or insightful comment or whatever) written by an "AI" than a bad one written by a Human.
I have found that that rule, while useful, is insufficiently precise. It opens the door to activist types who can turn anything political. I have had better luck with "no political advocacy", with that further defined for the rules lawyers as "arguing for or against any particular officeholder or candidate, proposed or passed legislation or rule, or speculating or discussing the motivations or effects of any of these at any level of government".
How do you PM the AI moderator to argue your case for reversing suspension?
There are two rules that make it infinitely easier to moderate/manage a social internet group: no politics, no religion. Done.
I'm not sure what your second point means? People will be happy to converse unknowingly with 'AI'?