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?

[microstrip]

You don't think ChatGPT can or should be used as kind of a modern version of an encyclopedia for establishing, for example, a baseline for mutually agreed technical information?

"What is a Class A amplifier?"

The main problem with ChatGPT in such matters is being verbiage associated and its mistakes. I am terrified with the idea someone could someday consider it as a encyclopedia for establishing, for example, a baseline for mutually agreed technical information

I asked the question for you - a long unbalanced answer, filled with errors and ambiguous comments. Also ChatGPT shows a strong bias depending on what you have been asking it - it will lie to please you, even about class A amplifiers. It is not like a simple google quote.

BTW, when I told the AI bot that a point was not true he immediately apologized and added one more mistake in a long divagation!

I stay to my point - in order to use AI we must be knowledge enough to scrutinize its answers.

 

[Doc76]

While I’m against AI posts, AI generated content is gathered from human written and verbal sources, such as the internet, books, magazines, articles, forums, etc. Unless AI has permission to use said human content, then in essence AI is stealing human content and claiming it as its own.

Since the audiophile community is rather small there’s a good chance that AI will use content from some forum members and claim it as its own. But the forum member may be banned as the forum AI software says just the opposite ….

Seems like a catch 22 …

 

[Ron Resnick]

The main problem with ChatGPT in such matters is being verbiage associated and its mistakes. I am terrified with the idea someone could someday consider it as a encyclopedia for establishing, for example, a baseline for mutually agreed technical information

BTW, when I told the AI bot that a point was not true he immediately apologized and added one more mistake in a long divagation!

I stay to my point - in order to use AI we must be knowledge enough to scrutinize its answers.

Thank you.

 

[Ron Resnick]

While I’m against AI posts, AI generated content is gathered from human written and verbal sources, such as the internet, books, magazines, articles, forums, etc. Unless AI has permission to use said human content, then in essence AI is stealing human content and claiming it as its own.

Since the audiophile community is rather small there’s a good chance that AI will use content from some forum members and claim it as its own. But the forum member may be banned as the forum AI software says just the opposite ….

Seems like a catch 22 …

These are the kinds of second order things I want us all to think about. I would like to avoid unintended consequences, such as falsely accusing a member of posting AI.

I'm not sure I agree with the problem you are raising, but putting that to one side, what is your proposed solution?

 

[treitz3]

@treitz3

Tom for the sake of clarification and education of all members reading this, can you please post what the ladder system is, how it works, what triggers the ladder system, how many warnings, (Informal and Formal) a member gets before a ban is impose. How long is the first ban. How many more warnings before a second ban and how many before a permanent ban, Is there anything such as spam or something egregious which would require an immediate permanent ban, I feel this needs to be memorialized here as to what you and your team do as to the ladder system.

Thank you

Okay. I will take a screenshot of the original, unmodified "Ladder System", originally proposed to the WBF. I have successfully used this to guide this board and others for well over 2 decades.

With that said, to the members of this forum, please keep in mind *the following;

Ron and Steve have nothing to do with moderating, the team's decisions, nor do they have any influence with the team's moderating decisions.
The team reserves the right to make immediate and strong action, if the need arises.
Depending on the severity of an offense, we reserve the right to bypass a level of said "ladder rung".
TOS violations sometimes take time to discuss, in order to come to the right decision. Therefore the membership may or may not see any, "publicly known" steps on this system.
Much of the moderating is done behind the scenes, as to not disrupt the natural flow of the WBF threads. One of our goals is to have minimal disruption to the flow of the WBF.
The length of time a violation remains on record and the points accumulated for any offense is at the sole discretion of the moderators.
Spammers get a complete, permanent, and immediate ban.
As part of the TOS, our moderating decisions are not open for public debate.




*Include but are not limited to.

Tom

 

[Synaxis]

Okay. I will take a screenshot of the original, unmodified "Ladder System", originally proposed to the WBF. I have successfully used this to guide this board and others for well over 2 decades.

With that said, to the members of this forum, please keep in mind *the following;

Ron and Steve have nothing to do with moderating, the team's decisions, nor do they have any influence with the team's moderating decisions.
The team reserves the right to make immediate and strong action, if the need arises.
Depending on the severity of an offense, we reserve the right to bypass a level of said "ladder rung".
TOS violations sometimes take time to discuss, in order to come to the right decision. Therefore the membership may or may not see any, "publicly known" steps on this system.
Much of the moderating is done behind the scenes, as to not disrupt the natural flow of the WBF threads. One of our goals is to have minimal disruption to the flow of the WBF.
The length of time a violation remains on record and the points accumulated for any offense is at the sole discretion of the moderators.
Spammers get a complete, permanent, and immediate ban.
As part of the TOS, our moderating decisions are not open for public debate.




*Include but are not limited to.

Tom

I find it amazing (in a positive way) the amount of time and effort you and your team put into this forum every day.

Well done.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you very much, Tom. This actually is the first time I'm seeing this.

After this ladder of warnings, is there then an additional stage which discusses a short term temporary suspension, and then progressively longer temporary suspensions, leading eventually to a ban?

I would love to see the written version of this entire process, from the first warning, through the warning process, then to the graduated suspension process -- step-by-step-by-step-by-step -- then to a complete ban.

I think it's very important for all members to see with total transparency exactly what the process is from the very first warning all the way through to a complete ban.

Thank you!

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...riddle me this: if I post a couple of paragraphs or more on a topic, and 3-6 months later, the same/similar question arises, and I cut/paste my own content, do AI Police flag my post?

Presumably, the AI Legions have consumed/scraped my original content from the past as part of their insatiable programming diet.

Would it regurgitate my text in an answer which would be close-enough to trigger a warning to me?

I'm asking because I don't know.

I have at times written more technical or detailed replies in "notepad" on my phone to proof (I was AI before AI) before posting...and later used the same/almost the same text because certain topics and questions seem to be cyclic in nature and people forget, or new folks join.

BTW: you'll know it's really me, because the post will included multiple instances of...incorrectly used ellipsis points...

 

[treitz3]

Thank you, Tom. This actually is the first time I'm seeing this.

After this ladder of warnings, is there then an additional stage which discusses a short term temporary suspension, and then progressively longer temporary suspensions, leading to a ban?

I would love to see the written version of this entire process, from the first warning through the warning process, then to the graduated suspension process -- step-by-step-by-step-by-step -- then to a complete ban.

I think it's very important for all members to see with total transparency exactly what the process is from the very first warning all the way through to a complete ban.

Thank you!

Ron, this will not happen.

As far as longer times for temporary suspensions go? Typically, yes. As a member moves up the ladder system? The length of suspension time increases. That much I will disclose but not everything the team does, nor the decisions we have made will EVER become public knowledge. That would only invite darkness and this is based on experience. It simply will not happen.

I've been doing this for a long time and I see exactly where you are headed with this. At some point, you need to understand that I have no desires to even remotely care about what you want. I care about what is good for this forum. Now, and many decades from now. Full disclosure of everything we do (on the public) front will simply not ever happen. As mentioned, you and Steve have zero influence over the moderating team. It's not about to start here. This will be the end of this particular discussion either publicly or privately.

The fact that, once again, the two owners of this forum, along with the lead moderator are publicly displaying dissension within the ranks is disgusting, embarrassing and honestly? Should never have been triggered to begin with. You and I both know that this all started with one person. Strangely, that same person hasn't chimed in on any of this. IMO, this all started with a bad decision (of which you were made aware of the foreseen issues and backstory privately, years ago) by more than just Steve.

That said, it is of my opinion that using A.I. or any other program to check spelling or correct sentences should always be allowed. We are not the grammar police. Using A.I or any other source for additional information (admittedly, sometimes I will look up a term because I have a brain fart) shouldn't be frown upon. Using A.I. or whatever program to assist in language translation shouldn't ever be frown upon. I don't think....or I wouldn't imagine that anyone on this board would disagree with any of those examples.

As Steve had mentioned, you are making this way more complicated than it needs to be. You know exactly what prompted this thread, why it exists and the fact that your pride is at stake? It seems as if you are willing to cut off your nose, despite your face. That's all fine and dandy if you want to do that for yourself.....but it should honestly not have ever happened to, nor had any effect on the WBF.

Tom

 

[mtemur]

Can anyone write code for a digital BOT and one for a Analogue BOT .
Or China AI against Silicon valley AI

Then have a separate thread where the 2 can fight it out at digital versus analogue

It will probably trigger the third world war considering the heat generated by digital vs analog among real humans.

 

[Doc76]

These are the kinds of second order things I want us all to think about. I would like to avoid unintended consequences, such as falsely accusing a member of posting AI.

I'm not sure I agree with the problem you are raising, but putting that to one side, what is your proposed solution?

I can’t think of a solution, that’s why I made the catch 22 comment. However, with many intelligent audiophiles on this forum, I tend to believe this is a real possibility in the future.

 

[DaveC]

We are in the midst of the most radical technological transformation that society has ever seen. Most people are only dimly aware of how rapidly their world is going to change. AI systems, powered by the richest and most powerful corporations in history, are going to rule all our lives.

Not all the changes will be bad. Huge improvements in processes will happen, like inventing life saving drugs in a fraction of the time needed earlier. This year two Nobel prizes in physics and chemistry went to AI. Many more will follow in years to come. But there will be undoubtedly huge job displacements as companies need far fewer people to do mundane office work. From Wall Street — where investment banking will likely see enormous reductions in staffing — to paralegals to software developers, the job cuts will be painful and deep. Paradoxically the folks least affected will be the “blue collar” workers — it’s a great time to learn a trade like plumbing!

What will most people do? Well, here’s what the Bay Area billionaires themselves have said on this topic.

Open AI is a proponent of Universal Basic Income. You get a basic living wage salary because you are a human. They have funded studies on this idea.

Unconditional Cash Study

OpenResearch is a nonprofit research lab that seeks to answer open-ended questions.

www.openresearchlab.org

The CEO of Anthropic in the Bay Area wrote of machines having “loving grace”, which are infinitely smarter than any human could hope to be.

Dario Amodei — Machines of Loving Grace

How AI Could Transform the World for the Better

darioamodei.com

Even the world’s most prestigious journal now asks how close are to AGI, when machines take over from humans in doing our most creative work;

How close is AI to human-level intelligence?

Large language models such as OpenAI’s o1 have electrified the debate over achieving artificial general intelligence, or AGI. But they are unlikely to reach this milestone on their own.

www.nature.com

This is not science fiction. It’s reality. These systems are here. They will take over. We have to get used to the fact that our future as humanity is changing. We were the dominant intellectual species. That’s not going to last. It’s inevitable.

Modern AI systems are trained on data that no human could digest in a thousand lifetimes. They are going to be much much smarter than us. What do we do? We can’t “pull the plug”! It’s too late. Any suggestions? I’m all ears. I hate to say I helped enable this technology for the past 40 years, but I did. I never thought it would happen in my lifetime. I’m as terrified by this prospect as are many of my colleagues who are leading AI experts. But we have no voice in stopping the technology. It’s too late for that.

Sounds like The Matrix x Idiocracy x Brave New World. An oligarchic technocracy ruling over the servant class. Soma for the masses in the form of ultra-addictive online AI content.

The evolution of digital was inevitable, but we're really bad at predicting the future. I think a significant number of humans will not accept the situation you describe. OTOH, I already see the acceptance of AI, not sure if it's a question of ignorance or simply not caring. I see people taking AI bots on Meta as real, multitudes of men seemingly not caring that the object of their adoration is not real and even paying for their attention. Just like the scene in the Matrix where cypher sells out and asks to be put back in the matrix...

Social media can be good in many ways, I predict a future where many will choose to interact with AI without caring if they are human. But I also see a future where there will be AI-free online spaces. Forums need to be one of those spaces if they are to survive.

AI will be smarter than us in many ways, but there are many measures of competence in this world. Wisdom often means a lot more than IQ.

 

[thedudeabides]

No, it's not that simple. How do you ban AI if you can't detect it -- if, as you suggest, the line between the difference vanishes?

And do you really mean only that AI generated text which is not conspicuously disclosed as AI generated text should be banned?

1) You obviously can't ban it in the strictest sense. The tech exists and will be used by some. You can make it a non acceptable posting tool similar to the WBF policy disallowing discussion of politics and religion.

2) Don't fully understand your question. Please rephrase.

If unchecked, use of AI can and will fundamentaly undermine the core intent and purpose of WBF. And I will be another person that will no longer participate not that anyone would give a rats ass one way or the other.

 

[thedudeabides]

Members who reflexively say "ban it" simply are not grasping the complexities.

We of diminished mental capacity thank you for pointing out our intellectual deficiencies. You are just so full of it.

 

[Ron Resnick]

2) Don't fully understand your question. Please rephrase.

I'm sorry for being unclear.

I understand you would like to ban AI from the forum. Do you have a problem with a member asking an AI a question about audio, and then posting on WBF the question he/she asked as well as the answer he/she received from the AI, conspicuously disclosing that the answer posted was generated by AI?

In other words is posting AI okay with you if the question and AI answer are fully disclosed?

 

[microstrip]

I agree.

Members who reflexively say "ban it" simply are not grasping the complexities.

Surely we hope that any rules we create are simply preventive and dissuasive.

This is why it is important for WBF as a community to take as long as we (the collective we, not you and me, Tim) need to think through these issues and to discuss these issues together.

A few more thoughts.

No one and no tools will completely ban AI from WBF - IMO the main idea is avoiding its abusive use. The same way as plagiarism or excessive quoting is unethical. The main problem with AI is that is accessible with just a few keystrokes and is unethical - members assume they are reading from and talking to another member, not to a bot. Proper quoting is very different from AI generated text - people must search, read and pick the relevant part, inserting in its own text with comments.

Disclosure of text generated by AI will not solve anything - some well intentioned members will answer to the bot and the disturbance will propagate in the forum.

 

[microstrip]

I'm sorry for being unclear.

I understand you would like to ban AI from the forum. Do you have a problem with a member asking an AI a question about audio, and then posting on WBF the question he/she asked as well as the answer he/she received from the AI, conspicuously disclosing that the answer posted was generated by AI?

Yes, I would have problems with it. If such practice is allowed I also would immediately leave the forum. I am not interested in becoming an AI bot corrector or discussing with them.

In other words is posting AI okay with you if the question and AI answer are fully disclosed?

Again, no, it is not.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Yes, I would have problems with it. If such practice is allowed I also would immediately leave the forum. I am not interested in becoming an AI bot corrector or discussing with them.



Again, no, it is not.

Thank you.

(For the avoidance of doubt nobody supports allowing bots to autonomously write posts.)

 

[tima]

Do you not think ChatGPT can or should be used as kind of a modern version of an encyclopedia for establishing, for example, a baseline for mutually agreed technical information?

"What is a Class A amplifier?"

No. You make things overly complex. The idea is to keep AI out of the forum, not use it as a dictionary.

Even your locution "Do you not think ..." instead of the straightforward "Do you think ...".

 

[Lagonda]

Yes, I would have problems with it. If such practice is allowed I also would immediately leave the forum. I am not interested in becoming an AI bot corrector or discussing with them.



Again, no, it is not.

Now you know how the rest of us feel about your postings sometimes Francisco !