I'd be more positive about it if you had put more forethought into how it should be implemented. By allowing the machine to display an assignation so prominently, you have essentially created a system whereby people are guilty until proven innocent.
Your philosophical outlook that the rights of the individual should be compromised for the good of the collective is in fact offensive to me.
Distancing yourself from the act of enabling the bot and the subsequent consequences of the bots actions does not disconnect you from responsibility either. I can roll a rock down a hill and the subsequent collisions could cause an avalanche of rocks. Am I free from blame? Or should I just blame it on physics?
Here is a suggestion, since I don't want to get bogged down in assignation of blame. Have the extension display a request that people rate the post, without displaying the assignation by default. Let people click on it to display your AI's guess. As it is only a guess. Over time it will be an educated guess, but for now it is not.
@stoodkev - I fully agree with Blue here, I've seen some great Steempeeps being called bots and likewise spammers. I think it should be voted on by a human aspect whether or not an account should be considered for any of the three categories and then manually put into the system. I for one, have decided to pay no mind to this extension as it seems biased and overrated. The algorithm(s) being used were poorly coded as anyone that knows @seablue, knows without a doubt, he is no spammer. Does it check a profile's comments and replies? Or simply go by titles and frequency? Because that's what it appears to be doing to me. Yes, some of @seablue's titles are similar, but then by that logic, your extension bot would classify virtually every contest or motivational poster out there as a 'spammer'.
The Sincerity API currently thinks @seablue is more 'Content Creator' than 'Spammer'. Please see: http://steemreports.com/sincerity-accounts-info/?accounts=seablue