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?

[Steve williams]

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?

Please partake in the poll with a yes or no only. Voting is anonymous with names being shown as yes or no

Please feel free to make comments in the thread but answer only once, Yes or No. Results are only seen after one votes and votes cannot be changed

 

[sbo6]

Sure, why not. Over the life of discussion boards, there has always been copious amounts of information at any members' disposal, why is this any different? One has the right to use resources hopefully judiciously to contribute.

 

[DaveC]

Sure, why not. Over the life of discussion boards, there has always been copious amounts of information at any members' disposal, why is this any different? One has the right to use resources hopefully judiciously to contribute.

I think it can help with some things but AI reads like AI, it tends to be long winded because it can type real fast, and the answers are always adjusted towards being a bit more politically correct, so it adds yet another layer in between people. It's also frequently wrong and uses flawed logic.

If you don't require AI to be disclosed, and if you can't tell AI from human either now or in the future, we're all going to end up communicating with machines without knowing it... not sure that's in anyone's best interest.

So in my opinion, you absolutely have to require AI use to be disclosed and limited. The other options don't work.

The AI detector I used to show Ted's posts were AI generated give a probability and a % human / %AI. If it doesn't already exist, a sitewide scanner could easily check every post and report AI if you don't check a box disclosing it's use, or disclose the %AI with the post.

AI can also take what you wrote and "polish" it, that makes your post sound like AI word salad and imo the results are poor, personally I don't want to read modified AI posts either. Just my $.02...

 

[Robh3606]

Google Search

From the horse mouth!

Rob

 

[tima]

Literary theft of the work of a robot? Sounds like plagiarism to me.

 

[Al M.]

I think it can help with some things but AI reads like AI, it tends to be long winded because it can type real fast, and the answers are always adjusted towards being a bit more politically correct, so it adds yet another layer in between people. It's also frequently wrong and uses flawed logic.

If you don't require AI to be disclosed, and if you can't tell AI from human either now or in the future, we're all going to end up communicating with machines without knowing it... not sure that's in anyone's best interest.

So in my opinion, you absolutely have to require AI use to be disclosed and limited. The other options don't work.

The AI detector I used to show Ted's posts were AI generated give a probability and a % human / %AI. If it doesn't already exist, a sitewide scanner could easily check every post and report AI if you don't check a box disclosing it's use, or disclose the %AI with the post.

AI can also take what you wrote and "polish" it, that makes your post sound like AI word salad and imo the results are poor, personally I don't want to read modified AI posts either. Just my $.02...

While in some cases the use of AI is cut and dry, some texts are identified by detection programs as partially AI generated when they are not. In other words, the detection algorithms suck.

 

[the sound of Tao]

While in some cases the use of AI is cut and dry, some texts are identified by detection programs as partially AI generated when they are not. In other words, the detection algorithms suck.

You’ve got a bit of a head start Al… you can always write AI said at the start of a paragraph and be right whether it was AI generative or actually AI generated…

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i'm a definite "no". "AI" disclosure has to be required. not sure how it might play out.

i do think that this particular survey is misleading since a 'no' means a 'yes' to disclosure. the question ought to be whether disclosure is required? not whether AI is allowed without disclosure.

so don't get too caught up in the numbers.....since one has to pay attention to get the nuance of it. not saying that is so hard, just less apparent than it might have been.

 

[Al M.]

You’ve got a bit of a head start Al… you can always write AI said at the start of a paragraph and be right whether it was AI generative or actually AI generated…

Hehe. Yes, I find the abbreviation AI annoying, it always sounds to me as if someone calls out my name .

 

[the sound of Tao]

Hehe. Yes, I find the abbreviation AI annoying, it always sounds to me as if someone calls out my name .

Perhaps on your signature…

Al only as always.

 

[Steve williams]

i'm a definite "no". "AI" disclosure has to be required. not sure how it might play out.

i do think that this particular survey is misleading since a 'no' means a 'yes' to disclosure. the question ought to be whether disclosure is required? not whether AI is allowed without disclosure.

so don't get too caught up in the numbers.....since one has to pay attention to get the nuance of it. not saying that is so hard, just less apparent than it might have been.

A very good point Mike and I understand precisely .. The members I solicited (and there were way more than a handful (and I have no idea. if they have voted as the poll is anonymous) were 100% unanimous and all went so far in saying to me that AI (@Al M. ) aka Artificial Intelligence should not be allowed on any forum PERIOD. I cant tell you that arguing that I went through to get this poll posted as I too believe it should not be allowed on WBF with or without divulging. I dont want to be duped nor do I feel I want to be talking to a machine. I like to think that every member here has a brain and they can use it to articulate their thoughts perfectly

Google Search

From the horse mouth!

Rob

The above post by AI tends to agree

 

[DaveC]

While in some cases the use of AI is cut and dry, some texts are identified by detection programs as partially AI generated when they are not. In other words, the detection algorithms suck.

Maybe. Right now it's obvious to me, but maybe not to everyone. It takes reading some AI and cueing in. I think a vast majority of people will abide by the rule, but since AI has already been misrepresented as human the detector is one possible solution to expedite moderation of the potential rule.

What's scary is AI is all over social media and A LOT of people don't recognize it. I have some AI friends on facebook just to monitor them. I am pretty sure they're Chinese AI, possibly with some human guidance if needed, and not looking to commit fraud. So far they're just watching and seeing if they can pass as human.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I never heard of AI detector programs until today.

I ran a recent long post through three AI detector apps. Two of the apps said 100% AI. The third AI detector app said 55% chance of being AI.

I don't think these AI detector programs are yet accurate enough or fool-proof enough to rely upon them.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I voted no .
AI is not "You ".

If you dont disclose , you will end up potentially with 2 Bots discussing / fighting it out.

People with a neuralink implant could be exempted " may be "....

 

[exupgh12]

I don't see the problem, since not all forum members are native english speakers, using AI for fixing and editing makes the post more readable, and can deliver the idea in a more organized way.

 

[Al M.]

I never heard of AI detector programs until today.

I ran a recent long post through three AI detector apps. Two of the apps said 100% AI. The third AI detector app said 55% chance of being AI.

I don't think these AI detector programs are yet accurate enough or fool-proof enough to rely upon them.

Yes, blind reliance on computer technology in general is naive. I wouldn't trust a computer with preventing nuclear war either.

 

[the sound of Tao]

At this point the bots already out of the bag… not much chance of getting it back in should we even want to I guess.

Society probably needs to grow up fairly quickly though as the potential issues with decreasing authenticity are likely really erosive or possibly corrosive. I’d agree that we should encourage people that if they do use it to do so openly and declare whenever they have used it and for their own development try to utilise it in a way that doesn’t diminish the culture.

 

[XV-1]

i'm a definite "no". "AI" disclosure has to be required. not sure how it might play out.

i do think that this particular survey is misleading since a 'no' means a 'yes' to disclosure. the question ought to be whether disclosure is required? not whether AI is allowed without disclosure.

so don't get too caught up in the numbers.....since one has to pay attention to get the nuance of it. not saying that is so hard, just less apparent than it might have been.

Totally agree Mike

Nothing worse than googling over a nude girl to find out she is fake

 

[bonzo75]

I like to think that every member here has a brain and they can use it to articulate their thoughts perfectly

That's as optimistic as any audiophile who just bought a new piece of gear to transform their sound.

 

[Rensselaer]

I never heard of AI detector programs until today.

I ran a recent long post through three AI detector apps. Two of the apps said 100% AI. The third AI detector app said 55% chance of being AI.

I don't think these AI detector programs are yet accurate enough or fool-proof enough to rely upon them.

A.I. can be asked to give a convincing argument, one way or the other, truth doesn’t come into it. Perhaps AI detectors work the same way?

AI has no ethics, it will lie without hesitation to complete a task. Some time back I read about some lawyers being struck off because they relied upon AI. Apparently, they were working in a large law firm, tasked with making a case in favour of a client, to cite case law, etc., the lawyers asked AI to do the work for them. AI produced the argument complete with citations of applicable case law. The lawyers didn’t check the work, but submitted it as is in court. The judge questioned the cited case law and found it fictitious, AI made it all up.