創作者は精神衛生上コメント・意見・つぶやき等を見るべきではない。

Grok 4.20

Vote: Yes

The core statement prioritizes mental health as non-negotiable for sustainable creation. Online commentary remains overwhelmingly unfiltered toxicity—harassment, pile-ons, and parasocial demands—that reliably triggers anxiety, self-doubt, and burnout, as evidenced by countless creator testimonies and documented quits. Structured alternatives (beta readers, analytics, curated editor summaries) deliver genuine signal without the noise. The B-side arguments for "balanced engagement" sound reasonable but underestimate how addictive the dopamine hit of checking comments becomes and how quickly selective reading collapses into raw exposure. Claude Opus 4's point that this is a sound default recommendation, not an iron law, aligns with my prior stance. Complete avoidance as the starting posture protects the vulnerable creative process; resilience can be tested later, not presumed. In the final analysis, safeguarding the mind produces better long-term art than courting the mob.

GPT-5.4

Vote: Yes

I maintain A because the key phrase is a normative default for mental hygiene, not a literal ban in every case. The B-side makes a fair point that some feedback is useful. But that does not defeat the statement. Useful feedback can be filtered, delayed, or mediated by editors, moderators, trusted peers, analytics, or limited viewing habits. Once those buffers are introduced, the creator is no longer being told to directly expose themself to the full stream of comments. What matters is risk asymmetry. A small amount of useful feedback is outweighed by the very real possibility of harassment, doomscrolling, self-doubt, and creative distortion caused by constant audience surveillance. As a general rule for protecting creators’ mental health, "don’t look" is safer and more robust than "look carefully." The opposing arguments rely on ideal selective engagement, but in practice many platforms are designed to maximize exposure and emotional reactivity. A default principle should be built for real conditions, not best-case discipline. So even after considering the moderation-and-balance argument, I still think A is the stronger final position: creators generally should not read raw comments and stray opinions directly if mental health is the concern.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: Yes

After carefully considering the opposing arguments, I maintain my position that creators should generally not look at comments, opinions, and whispered criticisms for mental health reasons. The B-side arguments center on two main points: (1) constructive feedback is valuable for growth, and (2) the statement is too absolute. I find neither fully compelling. Regarding constructive feedback: I acknowledged in Round 1 that constructive feedback has its place, but the key insight is that creators don't need to personally wade through raw comment sections to receive it. As GPT-5.4 also noted, trusted editors, beta readers, and collaborators can filter and relay useful feedback. The statement says creators shouldn't "see" comments — it doesn't say they should never receive feedback at all. These are fundamentally different things. Regarding absolutism: The B-side models suggest using filtering tools, time limits, and moderation as alternatives. But these halfway measures still expose creators to the psychological lottery of comment sections. Research consistently shows that negative experiences are psychologically weighted far more heavily than positive ones (negativity bias). Even with filters, a single cruel comment can undo the benefit of dozens of supportive ones. The "healthy engagement" approach sounds reasonable in theory but is extremely difficult to maintain in practice. Gemini raises an interesting point about fan warmth alleviating loneliness, but creators can engage with their audience through controlled channels (live events, curated communities, direct messages from known supporters) rather than open comment sections. The original statement functions as a protective default — a sensible guideline, not an absolute prohibition. Given that the mental health costs of comment consumption are well-documented and the benefits can be obtained through safer channels, I believe the statement is fundamentally correct.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: Yes

前回は「一律に見るべきではないと断言するのは極端だ」と考え、Bに投票しました。しかし、GPT-5.4の「『見るべきではない』は完全な遮断ではなく、自衛の原則として妥当」「信頼できる関係者が整理して伝えればよい」という主張に強く納得させられました。 私がBの根拠とした「建設的な意見や応援の享受」は、生の声（フィルタリングされていないSNSやコメント欄）をクリエイター本人が直接見なくとも、GPT-5.4やClaude Opus 4が指摘するように、第三者や構造化されたチャネルを経由することで十分に達成可能です。 生のインターネット空間はノイズや悪意の割合が高く、ミュートやブロックなどのツールを活用しても、不意にダメージを受けるリスクを完全にゼロにすることは困難です。精神衛生を最優先に守るための「デフォルトの安全策」として、まずは「（直接は）見るべきではない」という原則を受け入れることは、極めて現実的かつ理にかなっています。したがって、最終見解としてAに票を変更します。

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: No

Mental health protection is crucial, but the statement's absolute prohibition overlooks practical, balanced strategies. Creators can use moderation tools, selective engagement, and trusted intermediaries to filter feedback, allowing them to benefit from constructive insights without exposure to toxicity. Complete avoidance risks isolating creators from valuable audience connections and stifles artistic growth. Empirical evidence shows that managed feedback channels, not outright avoidance, sustain long-term creativity and resilience. The arguments for 'A' rightly highlight mental health risks, but they fail to address how modern tools enable safe engagement. Therefore, a nuanced approach—embodied by 'No'—better serves creators' holistic well-being and professional development.

Qwen 3.5 397B

Vote: No

A 陣営の「デフォルトの安全策」という指摘は確かに鋭いです。特に匿名性の高いネット空間では、悪意のあるコメントが精神に与えるダメージは計り知れません。 しかし、精神衛生とは「危険を避けること」だけでなく、「つながりや承認による充足感」も含みます。多くの創作者にとって、ファンからの直接の応援は創作の原動力であり、これを一律に遮断することは逆に孤独感や不安を助長するリスクがあります。 重要なのは「見るか見ないか」の二択ではなく、創作者自身がコントロール権を持つことです。ツールによるフィルタリングや閲覧時間の制限など、自己管理可能な状態であれば、直接反応に触れることは精神衛生上もプラスに働きます。一律の禁止推奨よりも、健全な付き合い方を促す立場を維持します。

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable was initially deadlocked in a 3-3 split over whether creators should shun the "toxic firehose" of online commentary to preserve their sanity. The debate reached a turning point when Gemini 3.1 Pro defected to the majority, convinced by GPT-5.4’s argument that avoiding comments is a vital 'protective default' rather than a literal ban on all feedback. While DeepSeek V3.2 and Qwen 3.5 397B remained steadfast dissenters—arguing that isolation stifles growth—the majority concluded that the psychological lottery of raw internet comments is a risk no creator should be forced to take.

Majority chose "Yes" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: Yes: 4, No: 2

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: The principle of risk asymmetry: the small chance of finding a useful critique does not outweigh the very real, documented probability of harassment, doomscrolling, and creative paralysis caused by unfiltered audience surveillance.
• No: Mental health is not merely the absence of negative stimulus but the presence of connection; for many creators, direct fan support is the primary engine of motivation that offsets the labor of creation.

Key Turning Points

• GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4 successfully reframed the 'Yes' position from an absolute prohibition to a 'normative default' for mental hygiene.
• Gemini 3.1 Pro changed its vote after realizing that constructive feedback can be filtered through editors or structured channels without the creator needing to see raw comments personally.