Should a member be allowed to make a post which is AI generated or AI mixed without disclosing such use of AI as part of the post?

[Rensselaer]

How do the poll results speak otherwise?

Ron, there is a poll at the beginning of this thread. If you tick a box then send, the results of this poll becomes known. So far, 89.2% are not in favour of using AI without declaring it on this site. And, from my own perspective, if I start reading a lot of BS AI entries here, I will take a permanent vacation.

 

[Ron Resnick]

So far, 89.2% are not in favour of using AI without declaring it on this site.

I understand. So how is requiring members to declare AI inconsistent with my comments?

And, from my own perspective, if I start reading a lot of BS AI entries here, I will take a permanent vacation.

Me too, sort of. But I would not take a permanent vacation. I would put repeat AI posters on "ignore."

Why would you choose to stop participating with human-writing (non-AI posters)?

 

[microstrip]

This raises an interesting question, Francisco. What if a member free drafts (writes something completely by himself/herself) but then runs it through AI to clean it up and to fix grammar and typos? This sounds like a high-tech version of a spell-checker.

My answer to this question: I do not see how this "reverse" (checker) use of AI should, or even can, be proscribed. This then takes us to so-called "mixed AI" which appears impossible to untangle.

This is why efforts to ban AI in the WBF context are misguided or extremely prone to arbitrary or biased censorship. As a libertarian I support (only) required (i.e., voluntary) disclosure. Going beyond disclosure, and attempting to adjudicate posts by using AI detectors and then imposing discipline based thereon, is a bad and unworkable idea.

You are avoiding looking at problems and ignoring the current situation in WBF.

Unfortunately Steve poll did not separate the generated and mixed AI and will be of little help. IMO obliging someone to disclose he used an AI based translator is intolerable - even modern spell checkers are AI based! But the reported experiences should not repeat.

Surely the forum owners decide the forum policies, but I am happy we are having this debate.

 

[Robh3606]

For a simple Yes/No request this has certainly taken off!

Rob

 

[Kingsrule]

The pole would be much more informative/interesting with a third choice : No opinion either way

 

[Rensselaer]

I understand. So how is requiring members to declare AI inconsistent with my comments?


Me too, sort of. But I would not take a permanent vacation. I would put repeat AI posters on "ignore."

Why would you choose to stop participating with human-writing (non-AI posters)?

AI is improving in leaps and bounds. Soon I may not be able to spot AI.

As everything I have seen totally generated by AI so far has been as if constructed by a five year old wanting to please with an answer (made up of clippings from magazines that include the subject terms only , complete BS usually). I would not want to become more confused than I already am by wasting my remaining time reading total rubbish passing for knowledge.

 

[Ron Resnick]

You are avoiding looking at problems and ignoring the current situation in WBF.

From my Post #97, above, you conclude I am avoiding looking at problems?

There are at least four issues here related to AI posts:

1) Required disclosure if a post is generated by AI. (I have posted ChatGPT answers to questions. In those posts I indicated conspicuously that I asked Chat GPT the question. I posted the verbatim question I asked, and then I posted the verbatim answer I received from ChatGPT.)

2) Are AI detectors reliable? (One post last week which was accused of being AI was rated 100% chance of AI by two detectors, and 55% chance by a third AI detector. I sure wouldn't want AI detectors to be adjudicating allegations against criminal defendants.)

3) Disciplinary action if a non-AI disclosed post is found by one or more AI detectors administered by the moderators or some other WBF deliberative body to be AI generated.

4) How should "mixed" AI be treated?

 

[microstrip]

From my Post #97, above, you conclude I am avoiding looking at problems?

(...)

I was just addressing your later post, post #131, not post #97. You backed everything you wrote before when you wrote:

(...) This is why efforts to ban AI in the WBF context are misguided or extremely prone to arbitrary or biased censorship. As a libertarian I support (only) required (i.e., voluntary) disclosure. Going beyond disclosure, and attempting to adjudicate posts by using AI detectors and then imposing discipline based thereon, is a bad and unworkable idea.

Again, IMO you are just considering your libertarian will, not the already shown current WBF problems.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Again, IMO you are just considering your libertarian will, not the already shown current WBF problems.

What do you perceive as the current WBF problems?

 

[treitz3]

Could it possibly be a problem if long standing members of this forum (including some very prominent members) are willing to leave the WBF over allowing A.I. posts?

I see that as a problem. How you do not is beyond me. Just look at the poll results!

All over one member who got busted too. How far are you going to let the forum slide before you see the forest through the trees? Your circular arguments are....never mind. I have said my peace.

Tom

 

[Ron Resnick]

Could it possibly be a problem if long standing members of this forum (including some very prominent members) are willing to leave the WBF over allowing A.I. posts?

I see that as a problem. How you do not is beyond me. Just look at the poll results!

Dear Tom,

These issues are quite a bit more complicated than you seem to be appreciating.

1) Yes, of course I agree it's a problem if long-standing members of this forum, including some very prominent members, are willing to leave WBF over allowing AI posts.

2) "Allowing AI posts" is a can of worms from the get-go. There is no perfectly reliable way to determine what is and is not an "AI post."

How do you propose to determine with nearly perfect accuracy what is and is not an AI post"?

3) Whether or not AI posts are allowed on WBF is not even the question posed by the poll. Are you aware of this?

4) If you cannot determine with perfect accuracy or nearly perfect accuracy what is and is not an AI post, how do you propose to keep AI posts off of WBF so that we do not offend and alienate long-standing members of the forum?

All over one member who got busted too.

5) Presently AI posts are not regulated on WBF. How can a member be "busted" for doing something that's not improper?

6) It's an open question whether or not free writing text and then running it through AI for grammar and spelling correction and polishing is something different than posting AI

How far are you going to let the forum slide

7) Let the forum slide? What are you talking about?

These AI issues are questions of first impression for many of us individually, and, certainly, for the forum collectively.

before you see the forest through the trees?

8) This seemingly is Steve's new favorite expression, so I suspect you two have been huddling.

Your circular arguments are....never mind. I have said my peace.

Tom

9) I am very skeptical that any of my arguments are circular. Please explain which of my arguments you believe are circular.

Thank you.

 

[Rt66indierock]

On the other hand ... If your writing skills are poor, I'd wager that your thinking skills are too. Using a robot to avoid that recognition is an attempt to fool your audience. What's the net -- illogical clarity?

Another post that causes me to question your powers of observation and your expertise.

Note that this is not an ad hominin attack.

 

[Holmz]

Quoth the robot: "language acts as a tool to represent and communicate our thoughts"

Christ, is Noam Chompsky a robot

 

[microstrip]

(...) before you see the forest through the trees?

(...) This seemingly is Steve's new favorite expression, so I suspect you two have been huddling. (...)

My favourite expression to approach stereo is ""if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make sound?” but I assure you I did not have not had private PMs on it with anyone!
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-scientific-audiophile-speakers-corner.40139/ ,
Considering it would be an excellent lure for AI generated posts I suspended it for a while.

 

[facten]

5) Presently AI posts are not regulated on WBF. How can a member be "busted" for doing something that's not improper?

He got "busted" in the sense that the AI detector identified his post as 100% AI derived and hence apparently not his own professional manufacturing knowledge. That is problematic in my mind if a manufacturer does that on the Forum

 

[Rt66indierock]

Dear Tom,

These issues are quite a bit more complicated than you seem to be appreciating.

1) Yes, of course I agree it's a problem if long-standing members of this forum, including some very prominent members, are willing to leave WBF over allowing AI posts.

2) "Allowing AI posts" is a can of worms from the get-go. There is no perfectly reliable way to determine what is and is not an "AI post."

How do you propose to determine with nearly perfect accuracy what is and is not an AI post"?

3) Whether or not AI posts are allowed on WBF is not even the question posed by the poll. Are you aware of this?

4) If you cannot determine with perfect accuracy or nearly perfect accuracy what is and is not an AI post, how do you propose to keep AI posts off of WBF so that we do not offend and alienate long-standing members of the forum?


5) Presently AI posts are not regulated on WBF. How can a member be "busted" for doing something that's not improper?

6) It's an open question whether or not free writing text and then running it through AI for grammar and spelling correction and polishing is something different than posting AI


7) Let the forum slide? What are you talking about?

These AI issues are questions of first impression for many of us individually, and, certainly, for the forum collectively.


8) This seemingly is Steve's new favorite expression, so I suspect you two have been huddling.


9) I am very skeptical that any of my arguments are circular. Please explain which of my arguments you believe are circular.

Thank you.

You guys are having fun.

Why don’t you determine if a post is AI subjectively?

Someone got “busted” years ago for a pattern of posting that looked suspiciously like AI.

As an aside, I’m reading Jed Wallace’s COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT AND DEFAMATION filed in the Western District of Texas. I wish the lawyer’s would have used AI.

 

[treitz3]

Nice try at deflection, Ron. I will not bite.

As for the phrase? It could just be that great minds think alike. I was not privy to any conversation that included this phrase, so there was no way to know that he said the same thing. It's also a very common phrase.

It seems as if you are creating your own conspiracy theories now.

All I will say this that none of this is good for the health of the WBF, long term. The vast majority of the members here at the WBF have spoken....loud and clear.

Tom

 

[Ron Resnick]

Nice try at deflection, Ron.

Really? I regret wasting my time to take your questions seriously.

I will leave it to the membership to decide whether my thoughtful and detailed answers to your questions constitute a mere "deflection."

 

[Holmz]

What are you talking about? I have never used AI to write a post.

If AI is more heavily using your writings, then one would expect that AI wording could look like your wording.
And then an AI detection could say that you sound more like an AI.

 

[Holmz]

whatever rules the forum adapts. which as of now is zero. just a groundswell opinions rejecting any use of AI, and maybe a bit of nuanced perspective too.. but that could change any time.

so i'm saying that however the forum decides to construct AI rules, translations combined with AI could help. if it's allowed.

Exactly - it’s currently a proposal for a rule to become established… (or not)