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?

[andromedaaudio]

Regardless of the subject matter will there be or can there be a 'neutral' AI? I don't know.

All AI will be programmed to make a profit/ advantage for someone / a company one way or the other , otherwise it would make no sense for the developer .
So a neutral AI ..... is not very likely imo

 

[PYP]

I don't know how AI engines work -- happily I've been out of IT long enough -- but I'm confident the algorithms are programmed intentionally and are given rules to follow about both themselves and how to deal with certain content. Different engnes may deal with the same content differently. They may construct responses ultimately based on their designer's predilections, overt or tacit, effectively leaning one way or the other on certain issues.

Consider that today large social media sites have armies of watchers constantly going through content and ranking it in ways that makes it more or less visible, transparent or hidden. Presumably the guidelines the watchers follow can be turned into algorithmic controls within an AI engine.

I'm somewhat sceptical of the notion that an AI simply regurgitates what it scoops up and I'm very sceptical that human content could influence how an AI engine acts or presents information. Over time we may get a sense of how different engines respond -- not unlike studying a polling provider for several years to understand how their polling practices tend to lean one way or the other. Regardless of the subject matter will there be or can there be a 'neutral' AI? I don't know.

Agree. It follows its programming and there is an open question about how neutral programming can be.

My understanding is that the chat bots are predictive statistical engines that look for word patterns and guess the next word based upon extensive pattern recognition. There is also a programmed in verification and correction engine that the AI can use to determine if it was right in its word prediction and correct accordingly if wrong. OK, most of that is beyond my comprehension. No problem. But no one can explain exactly what is going on inside of that process - how it actually/practically works! That leads to the fear of machines going wild.

I believe the applied programs such as its use in radiology is similar. Look for patterns from as much data as can be provided. AI doesn't get tired and it can notice minute patterns that escape the human eye (it simply has greater resolution), especially one that has been doing this all day long and gets tired. Again, it can learn its mistakes.

Overall, what I was trying to say (without the help of AI) is that AI is not creative even when it appears to be and requires the creative output of humans who become anonymous in this immense data scrape. For example, fed enough fantasy art like the one posted (which seems to me to combine several male fantasies into the possibility of a pixie woman who can fly) the AI sees patterns in the way images are presented and can iterate on them. The programmer, presumably, adds the rules that govern the iteration. Suddenly, AI seems to be creating. I assume music follows the same scenario.

But, creative folks can also use AI to create. An audiophile friend sent me an example of fantasy art (don't know what is actually called) that a buddy had made by explaining very specifically to the AI what he wanted. It was quite impressive. But it is based upon the creative work of many, many original artists. If it for the artist's amusement that seems fine. What about if he sells it?

 

[Al M.]

The question becomes, where does the slippery slope begin of what is AI and what not?

Sometimes when I write a long post (like for a review) I compose in in Microsoft Word. If its algorithm, a very basic form of AI as it were, suggests different wording or grammar while I write and I adjust the text based on that (often by rewriting the sentence myself), doesn't count as support by AI, thus at least as "mixed" AI? Did I use AI without disclosing it?

 

[thedudeabides]

Another sequel surpasses the original is Terminator 2 in my opinion. Which is a remarkable movie that feeds the fear of AI inside us and quite right doing that in my opinion.

BTW Lance Henriksen is the name you’re looking for.

Agree on all counts. Thanks for the info. FYI, T2 is another Cameron movie. Director and script co-writer.

 

[microstrip]

1. You know you should attribute the source of your graphic.

It is clearly stated in the post - the free version of ChatGPT.

2. Whatever enhancement of discussion that comes from AI is not worth the tradeoffs that come from embracing it.

Nice sounding general sentence, but what you mean by "embracing it"?

Contrary to your view, I consider AI an excellent tool and that its intelligent use can enrich any debate about audio. But there are also ethical and some negative areas we must consider.

 

[microstrip]

(...) My understanding is that the chat bots are predictive statistical engines that look for word patterns and guess the next word based upon extensive pattern recognition. There is also a programmed in verification and correction engine that the AI can use to determine if it was right in its word prediction and correct accordingly if wrong. (...)

No, they are much more than that. And there are different types of AI bots, with different capabilities. Curiously they are good in explaining what they are and how they work.

 

[thedudeabides]

2. Whatever enhancement of discussion that comes from AI is not worth the tradeoffs that come from embracing it.

So true. Despite their convenience and integration into our daily lives, look what happened with cell phone tech. In my view, they have compromised and / or destroyed many critical life skills in our younger generation. Think about what a typical "going out to lunch" scenario amongst tweens looks like. In many family and adult encounters for that matter.

 

[Steve williams]

I was interested that yesterday‘s Super Bowl pregame. There was an AI generated video of farmer coach. Jimmy Johnson dating all the way back to his youth until present day. It sure was convincing and sure looked real. Then once the game started one of the very first commercials was by Coca-Cola also using AI. Gentlemen, it’s here to stay and we have to make a decision to what we wanna do on what’s best for. I feel very strongly that it should not be used.

 

[PeterA]

I was interested that yesterday‘s Super Bowl pregame. There was an AI generated video of farmer coach. Jimmy Johnson dating all the way back to his youth until present day. It sure was convincing and sure looked real. Then once the game started one of the very first commercials was by Coca-Cola also using AI. Gentlemen, it’s here to stay and we have to make a decision to what we wanna do on what’s best for. I feel very strongly that it should not be used.

Steve, you seem to want feedback from and transparency for the membership. The moderators are opaque and seem to operate with autonomy and absolute power. Ron seems to have unanswered questions and has been told we will not get his answers.

You have your poll results and fifteen pages of comments. You are the forum owner. I think you should make a decision, inform the members, and implement the policy. I suggest you alone write the new policy using your best judgement. You can always change the policy as the forum evolves. Tom and his team can enforce the new policy, but as owner, you should be aware of the rules that guide their decisions. The interesting question for me is the possible integration of AI detection on the forum and what will happen to the posts that started this whole discussion.

 

[microstrip]

I was interested that yesterday‘s Super Bowl pregame. There was an AI generated video of farmer coach. Jimmy Johnson dating all the way back to his youth until present day. It sure was convincing and sure looked real. Then once the game started one of the very first commercials was by Coca-Cola also using AI. Gentlemen, it’s here to stay and we have to make a decision to what we wanna do on what’s best for. I feel very strongly that it should not be used.

Good. But the forum must have a kind of post preview facility where members that are writing their posts can know its status before submitting the post. False positives after submission can be a real problem and create conflicts in forums.

BTW, after scanning WBF free ChatGPT estimates such operation would have a cost between $40 and $120 per month.

 

[Ron Resnick]

False positives after submission can be a real problem and create conflicts in forums.

Most of my posts on this thread are directed at precisely this concern.

 

[Argonaut]

Steve, you seem to want feedback from and transparency for the membership. The moderators are opaque and seem to operate with autonomy and absolute power. Ron seems to have unanswered questions and has been told we will not get his answers.

You have your poll results and fifteen pages of comments. You are the forum owner. I think you should make a decision, inform the members, and implement the policy. I suggest you alone write the new policy using your best judgement. You can always change the policy as the forum evolves. Tom and his team can enforce the new policy, but as owner, you should be aware of the rules that guide their decisions. The interesting question for me is the possible integration of AI detection on the forum and what will happen to the posts that started this whole discussion.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave , when first we practice to deceive”

Sir Walter Scott .

As ever … That Pound Of Resnikian Flesh ! All over flouncer Karmeli …

 

[Ron Resnick]

You are the forum owner.

Hello Peter,

Steve is not the forum owner. Steve and I own WhatsBestForum.com 50/50. We are co-owners.

Steve is the sole "Site Founder."

Steve's avatar which says "Site Owner" is incorrect and misleading. Each of us is a "Site Co-Owner."

I think you should make a decision, inform the members, and implement the policy. I suggest you alone write the new policy using your best judgement.

All decisions about WhatsBestForum.com and its members are made jointly and unanimously by Steve and I.

No new AI Term of Service shall be promulgated unless Steve and I mutually agree.

 

[PeterA]

Hello Peter,

Steve is not the forum owner. Steve and I own WhatsBestForum.com 50/50. We are co-owners.

Steve is the sole "Site Founder."

Steve's avatar which says "Site Owner" is incorrect and misleading. Each of us is a "Site Co-Owner."


All decisions about WhatsBestForum.com and its members are made jointly and unanimously by Steve and I.

No new AI Term of Service shall be promulgated unless Steve and I mutually agree.

So you keep telling me, Ron. You certainly have different designations, and those remain unchanged after all this time. You told me that you take a very "passive" role as co-owner, and that seems to be case. Tom's post denying your request confirms it. When I get chastised for my posts, it does not come from Tom, but from Steve, and you have no knowledge of it.

Regardless, I am describing things as I saw them before and as I see them now. Steve asked for comments. I posted my suggestion. I found your proposed rule regarding AI overly complicated and different from what Steve might come up with. Of course, you, Steve, and Tom will work this out as you see fit. Or perhaps things will remain as they are.

 

[microstrip]

(...) All decisions about WhatsBestForum.com and its members are made jointly and unanimously by Steve and I. (...)

What are the exact decisions you and Steve can jointly and unanimously make concerning its members?

 

[Ron Resnick]

You told me that you take a very "passive" role as co-owner.

This is untrue. I have never said this, except with respect to the technical IT aspects and back-end of the website regarding member registration and log-in issues and moving threads around and the like. I have always deferred to Julian and Steve on those Xenforo and IT aspects.

I have never taken a passive role as co-owner, except with regard to these website and IT type issues.

This is another one of your false statements and over-broad mischaracterizations.

 

[PeterA]

This is untrue. I have never said this, except with respect to the technical IT aspects and back-end of the website regarding member registration and log-in issues and moving threads around and the like. I have always deferred to Julian and Steve on those Xenforo and IT aspects.

This is another one of your over-broad mischaracterizations.

I will refresh your memory by sending you a text.

 

[thedudeabides]

But the forum must have a kind of post preview facility where members that are writing their posts can know its status before submitting the post.

Please explain. Are you suggesting that posts get "screened" for acceptance before going on line?

 

[PeterA]

What does "chastised" mean in this context?

Steve and I both know that neither of us is supposed to be moderating.

Ron, are you asking me to share here publicly the private direct messages Steve sent me regarding the content of some of my posts?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, I think you will understand that I do not want to divulge my WBF direct messages with Steve here publicly.

I did not ask you to divulge direct messages with Steve, did I?

I asked you what you mean by the word "chastised."