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?

[Ted Denney III]

The problem is this: I am not willing to engage with AI-generated content.

If you read the thread in question the AI post I called out is so far off from what he posted previously that it's clear it's not written by the same person. I don't believe Ted is responsible for the content at all, and that it is in fact AI-generated. I think this is obvious.

It seems like you may not be all that experienced in recognizing AI written text. What Ted wrote reads like AI to those who have experience recognizing it, and for that reason it's a bad idea to use it professionally. Maybe the paid versions do a better job, but to me the writing comes off as artificial and contrived.

The fact we are questioning whether a post is AI-generated or not is proof enough it shouldn't be allowed to do anything more than check spelling and basic grammar. When it starts reformulating entire sentences I think it's a step too far, because then it's too easy for Ted to do what he's doing right now.

Ted is lying to us all, he's used AI-generated text to further his own business and to argue against a competitor. AI is what's allowing him to create the sheer volume of posts that he's put up since he joined. Ron, you're being used as Ted's marketing forum and Ted is abusing everyone on WBF with AI generated spam. How far are you going to let this go?

Clearly you are not willing to engage with content that challenges your dogmatic stance. You appear to be in over your head and so engage in personal attacks, indulge in logical fallacies, and sidestep arguments that refute your sophomoric engineering claims. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Ron Resnick]

What is "polishing"? You make it sound innocuous.

Play with one of the AI apps and see what I mean. You put your own text into the thing and you decide if you want just spelling and grammar checked, or if you also want also it kind of polished linguistically. I don't know how else to put it.

If you use the app fully the text winds up sounding overly clean and perfect and just not very natural. That's what I mean by polishing.

 

[Ron Resnick]

The problem is this: I am not willing to engage with AI-generated content.

You're answering a question that I did not ask. I didn't ask about AI generated content.

 

[treitz3]

That's what this entire thread is about. AI generated content.

Tom

 

[Ron Resnick]

That's what this entire thread is about. AI generated content.

Tom

AI generated content is one of the things this thread is about.

Even in the draft Term of Service I distinguish very conscientiously between two different uses of AI:

posts which are generated by AI

and

posts which are member drafted and then processed through AI

These are two separate things; two separate uses of AI.

I think we're all agreed that nobody wants AI generated content where a member asks AI a question and the member just posts the answer as his/her own. That's not kosher.

The harder question is when AI is used at what I am calling the back-end, for spelling correction and grammar correction and, possibly, polishing. Depending on the application and how the user uses the application the polishing can be dialed up and down (I think). I'm being a little figurative here, but if the polishing is very strong, the originally written text may become so polished as to flunk the AI detector. But if it's just used for spelling and grammar and the polishing is at a low setting, so to speak, then the post will sound natural and will pass the AI detector.

 

[Holmz]

Ted, what are your actual credentials? You have a very basic, elementary understanding of electrical phenomenon that makes me believe you have no real education or knowledge of the subject.

So now you’re committing the fallacy of reasoning: appeal to authority. I’ll tell you what my credentials are: I sell more in a good week than you do in a year. The market votes with its dollars, Dave.
…

I am not sure that the sales argument is a credential.

Your question is best answered with a simple AI query using Perplexity Pro. In other words, this is well understood electrical theory best addressed through a non biased search result.

The hypothesis that a silver wire in an air dielectric subjectively outperforms the same silver wire in a sealed PTFE (Teflon) dielectric can be explained by considering several mechanical and electromagnetic factors. These factors align with both theoretical principles and empirical observations from audiophiles. Below is an explanation framed in accessible terms for the average ultra-high-end audio enthusiast:

I suppose all the question below are to the AI, but hopefully you can clarify its answers.

1. Dielectric Constant and Signal Propagation

• Air vs. PTFE: Air has a dielectric constant of approximately 1.00059, which is extremely close to a vacuum—the ideal environment for electromagnetic wave propagation. In contrast, PTFE has a dielectric constant of about 2.1. This difference means that air introduces far less interference with the electromagnetic field surrounding the conductor.

What sort of interference?

• Impact on Sound: A lower dielectric constant reduces energy storage and signal delay caused by the interaction between the conductor and its insulation. This allows the signal to propagate more faithfully, preserving subtle details in the music, which audiophiles often describe as “openness” or “naturalness” in sound.

What sort of interaction is that?

2. Dielectric Absorption and Energy Storage

• PTFE’s Drawback: Solid dielectrics like PTFE can absorb and release small amounts of electrical energy as the signal passes through, a phenomenon known as dielectric absorption. This process can smear or distort the timing of high-frequency components, creating what some listeners perceive as a “sterile” or “compressed” sound.

How it is storing it? And how is it releasing it?
Is this ever measured or compared graphically between cables?

• Air’s Advantage: Air does not store or release energy in this way, ensuring that the signal remains unaltered as it propagates along the conductor.

3. Electromagnetic Field Interaction

• Signal as an Electromagnetic Wave: Audio signals are primarily carried by the electromagnetic field around the conductor rather than by electron flow through it. The quality of this field is influenced by the surrounding material.

What quality?
The speed is surely affected.

• PTFE’s Influence: PTFE, being a solid material, interacts more with the electromagnetic field than air does, potentially altering its characteristics. This interaction is minimal in air, allowing for cleaner and more accurate propagation of high-frequency details.

Unless there is some group delay with the dielectric, or some other polarising thing happening, then how doe sit change with frequency?

4. Oxidation of Silver

• Silver Oxide vs. Pure Silver: While silver oxidizes to form silver oxide (Ag2O) or silver sulfide (Ag2S), these compounds are still conductive—unlike copper oxide, which is highly resistive. Thus, even if oxidation occurs on a silver conductor in an air dielectric, it has minimal impact on signal propagation.

• PTFE Heat Effects: The process of applying PTFE insulation often involves heat, which can accelerate oxidation on the surface of the silver wire before it is sealed inside the dielectric. Once sealed, any further oxidation is prevented but at the cost of locking in an already altered surface layer.

5. Subjective Listening Experience

• Audiophiles often describe cables with air dielectrics as sounding more “open,” “dynamic,” and “natural.” This subjective perception aligns with the reduced interference and lower energy storage effects provided by air as a dielectric.

6. Practical Challenges

• While air dielectrics are theoretically superior, they are harder to implement because they leave conductors exposed to environmental factors like oxidation and mechanical instability. Manufacturers use PTFE because it provides durability and consistency over time, albeit at some cost to sonic performance.

Conclusion

The subjective superiority of silver wire in an air dielectric likely stems from its minimal interaction with the electromagnetic field around the conductor compared to PTFE’s higher dielectric constant and absorption characteristics. Air allows for purer signal propagation with less distortion or smearing of high-frequency details, resulting in what listeners perceive as greater openness and clarity.

I am not sure that jives with RF cables which have PTFE in them and carry signals in the MHz or GHz range.

However, practical considerations like durability and long-term stability often lead manufacturers to favor PTFE despite its slight compromises in performance. For audiophiles who prioritize sonic purity above all else—and are willing to accept potential challenges like oxidation—air dielectrics remain an appealing choice for achieving optimal sound quality.

 

[Ted Denney III]

I am not sure that the sales argument is a credential.



I suppose all the question below are to the AI, but hopefully you can clarify its answers.


What sort of interference?


What sort of interaction is that?


How it is storing it? And how is it releasing it?
Is this ever measured or compared graphically between cables?


What quality?
The speed is surely affected.


Unless there is some group delay with the dielectric, or some other polarising thing happening, then how doe sit change with frequency?


I am not sure that jives with RF cables which have PTFE in them and carry signals in the MHz or GHz range.

1. Tarnish Impact:
For audio frequencies (20 Hz - 20 kHz), the effect of tarnish on a 0.25 mm silver wire would be negligible. The tarnish layer, primarily silver sulfide, is still conductive, albeit less so than pure silver. The thin tarnish layer would not significantly affect the wire's overall conductivity or the signal transmission in the audio range.

2. Skin Effect:
At audio frequencies, the skin effect is minimal. Even if tarnish slightly alters the wire's surface conductivity, it wouldn't significantly impact signal propagation for audio frequencies.

3. Air vs. PTFE Dielectric:
The air dielectric, despite allowing for some tarnish formation, would still be preferable to PTFE for several reasons:

- Lower Dielectric Constant: Air has a dielectric constant very close to 1, while PTFE is around 2.1. This means less signal alteration and energy storage in the dielectric.
- Less Signal Smearing: Air introduces far less time smearing and phase distortion compared to solid dielectrics like PTFE.
- No Heat-Induced Tarnish: Unlike PTFE application, which can cause heat-induced tarnish during manufacturing, air dielectric allows the wire to remain in its original state.

4. Parallel Wire Configuration:
The presence of the larger 1 mm wire in parallel would further mitigate any minor effects of tarnish on the 0.25 mm wire, as the larger wire would carry most of the current due to its lower resistance.


In conclusion, for audio frequency transmission, the slight tarnish on a 0.25 mm silver wire in an air dielectric would be far less detrimental than the combined effects of PTFE dielectric properties and potential heat-induced tarnish from PTFE application. The air dielectric configuration results in superior signal transmission characteristics for audio applications, even with some surface tarnish present.

 

[PYP]

I am starting to think this AI on WBF issue will be a short-term problem, as explained in the article I quoted in an earlier post. After a few months of letting AI think for you, you will wander around your home in your bathrobe, unbathed and unshaven, babbling about nothing in particular because your brain has started to rot.

Some of these posts might indicate the early phase of AI (not @Al M. ) brain rot. This almost makes me nostalgic for the analog vs. digital arguments.

 

[Steve williams]

Once again I find it tough to understand that AI is used for spelling and grammar checks. Whenever I write a post any word which is misspelled is underlined in red and the properly spelled word is shown. So also is the same with grammar. In fact our posts now are so intuitive that the sentence is often finished for us and more often is correct. Let’s get beyond using AI to spell check because IMHO that’s bull crap. Now the word polishing has surfaced. To me this is AI manipulation plain and simple Call a spade a spade Ron What you’re saying is doing nothing except fostering a mistruth. Really someone needs to use AI to spell check. I call BS on that. And as far as polishing what a dumbass word. To me this is someone who is asking AI to make him sound like an expert by AI manipulation . If anybody disagrees go for it and make your case. To me you are burying the intention to deceive by calling it spell check and polishing. I say give me a break and call it what it is

 

[PYP]

@Ted Denney III if I promise to try your UEF switch v2 will you stop posting about silver cables? Deal?

 

[Ted Denney III]

@Ted Denney III if I promise to try your UEF switch v2 will you stop posting about silver cables? Deal?

Sure, but I was responding to a, nvm.

 

[PYP]

Sure, but I was responding to a, nvm.

I know. And your first post was interesting. Just kidding, because I already made up my mind to try out the switch 2.0. The marketing language is fine and necessary, but the in-home test is what makes it easy to decide for oneself. That is a good approach.

 

[godofwealth]

AI generated content is one of the things this thread is about.

Even in the draft Term of Service I distinguish very conscientiously between two different uses of AI:

posts which are generated by AI

and

posts which are member drafted and then processed through AI

These are two separate things; two separate uses of AI.

I think we're all agreed that nobody wants AI generated content where a member asks AI a question and the member just posts the answer as his/her own. That's not kosher.

The harder question is when AI is used at what I am calling the back-end, for spelling correction and grammar correction and, possibly, polishing. Depending on the application and how the user uses the application the polishing can be dialed up and down (I think). I'm being a little figurative here, but if the polishing is very strong, the originally written text may become so polished as to flunk the AI detector. But if it's just used for spelling and grammar and the polishing is at a low setting, so to speak, then the post will sound natural and will pass the AI detector.

You might be familiar with this tool called GPTZero, which claims to detect AI written content.

AI Detector - the Original AI Checker for ChatGPT & More

Covered by >100 media outlets, GPTZero is the most advanced AI detector for ChatGPT, GPT-4, Gemini. Check up to 50000 characters for AI plagiarism in seconds.

gptzero.me

I’m dubious of all such claims, but the designers claim that it is possible to statistically detect AI generated content. When Open AI released an AI watermarking tool, someone applied it to the Bible, which it then claimed was AI generated.

To get back to history a bit, what you’re trying to do in deciding a policy for WBF here is to solve Alan Turing’s famous Imitation Game. Imagine conversing with someone over the internet. You ask questions and get answers. On the basis of your interactions, you have to decide if the entity you’re interacting with is human or machine. Turing’s famous paper describing imitation games was published in the journal MIND in 1950. I view it as the beginning of AI. It’s a great intro to AI 75 years later. Turing was a genius, sadly persecuted by the British authorities for being gay. No one did more to save Great Britain in the war than he did, leading a team of crack cryptographers at Bletchley Park to crack the German Enigma code. Yet he was treated cruelly at the end and took his own life when forced to undergo degrading hormonal treatment. Now in the heart of London there is a prestigious Alan Turing Institute that does research in AI and computing. The irony is thick. It’s nicely recounted in the Oscar winning movie The Imitation Game.

https://courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/turing.pdf

 

[godofwealth]

I am starting to think this AI on WBF issue will be a short-term problem, as explained in the article I quoted in an earlier post. After a few months of letting AI think for you, you will wander around your home in your bathrobe, unbathed and unshaven, babbling about nothing in particular because your brain has started to rot.

Some of these posts might indicate the early phase of AI (not @Al M. ) brain rot. This almost makes me nostalgic for the analog vs. digital arguments.

This is not a hypothetical. Folks are already doing this experiment. This NY Times article quotes a columnist who claimed to have let AI make all decisions for her for a whole week, including what should I wear, what should I cook etc. We are beginning a new era in humanity when machines will do the thinking for us and we’ll wander around like zombies.

I Took a ‘Decision Holiday’ and Put A.I. in Charge of My Life

I thought it would make me put glue on pizza, but instead it entertained my children and got me to finally paint my office. How could it transform our daily lives?

www.nytimes.com

 

[PYP]

This is not a hypothetical. Folks are already doing this experiment. This NY Times article quotes a columnist who claimed to have let AI make all decisions for her for a whole week, including what should I wear, what should I cook etc. We are beginning a new era in humanity when machines will do the thinking for us and we’ll wander around like zombies.

I Took a ‘Decision Holiday’ and Put A.I. in Charge of My Life

I thought it would make me put glue on pizza, but instead it entertained my children and got me to finally paint my office. How could it transform our daily lives?

www.nytimes.com

I think the AI as friend and confidant will catch on with a certain generation. It is kinda sad that kids have become isolated because of technology and technology will be used by some as a remedy. Check out the video of the Honda EV 0 series. A car as one's friend. The young folks in the ad (and it is only an ad, of course) eat it up. It made me a bit queasy.

 

[Holmz]

@Ted Denney III if I promise to try your UEF switch v2 will you stop posting about silver cables? Deal?

I saw that a few pages after I asked the questions.

Sure, but I was responding to a, nvm.

We should take this somewhere else… but where?

 

[tima]

Once again I find it tough to understand that AI is used for spelling and grammar checks. Whenever I write a post any word which is misspelled is underlined in red and the properly spelled word is shown. So also is the same with grammar. In fact our posts now are so intuitive that the sentence is often finished for us and more often is correct. Let’s get beyond using AI to spell check because IMHO that’s bull crap. Now the word polishing has surfaced. To me this is AI manipulation plain and simple Call a spade a spade Ron What you’re saying is doing nothing except fostering a mistruth. Really someone needs to use AI to spell check. I call BS on that. And as far as polishing what a dumbass word. To me this is someone who is asking AI to make him sound like an expert by AI manipulation . If anybody disagrees go for it and make your case. To me you are burying the intention to deceive by calling it spell check and polishing. I say give me a break and call it what it is

Yes, exactly. I support this view. This 'polishing' is a weasel word that leads to the slippery slope of 'how much AI is acceptable'.

You put your own text into the thing and you decide if you want just spelling and grammar checked, or if you also want also it kind of polished linguistically. I don't know how else to put it.

Too vague. I know how to put it: it is AI generated content because it is no longer the author's words. Don't put your "text into the thing" and the issue goes away.

This attempted bifurcation between "AI generated content" and "AI polishing" is more needless complexity that will lead to more contention and denigration of forum integrity.

 

[tima]

We should take this somewhere else…

Please do. Just because Denney The Third pays to be here doesn't mean he's not disruptive.

 

[Al M.]

When Open AI released an AI watermarking tool, someone applied it to the Bible, which it then claimed was AI generated.

Thanks. Kinda makes my point, doesn't it?

See also here:

https://cybernews.com/editorial/your-essay-was-ai-generated-so-was-the-bible-harry-potter/

 

[microstrip]

1. Tarnish Impact:
For audio frequencies (20 Hz - 20 kHz), the effect of tarnish on a 0.25 mm silver wire would be negligible. The tarnish layer, primarily silver sulfide, is still conductive, albeit less so than pure silver. The thin tarnish layer would not significantly affect the wire's overall conductivity or the signal transmission in the audio range.

2. Skin Effect:
At audio frequencies, the skin effect is minimal. Even if tarnish slightly alters the wire's surface conductivity, it wouldn't significantly impact signal propagation for audio frequencies.

3. Air vs. PTFE Dielectric:
The air dielectric, despite allowing for some tarnish formation, would still be preferable to PTFE for several reasons:

- Lower Dielectric Constant: Air has a dielectric constant very close to 1, while PTFE is around 2.1. This means less signal alteration and energy storage in the dielectric.
- Less Signal Smearing: Air introduces far less time smearing and phase distortion compared to solid dielectrics like PTFE.
- No Heat-Induced Tarnish: Unlike PTFE application, which can cause heat-induced tarnish during manufacturing, air dielectric allows the wire to remain in its original state.

4. Parallel Wire Configuration:
The presence of the larger 1 mm wire in parallel would further mitigate any minor effects of tarnish on the 0.25 mm wire, as the larger wire would carry most of the current due to its lower resistance.
View attachment 145535

In conclusion, for audio frequency transmission, the slight tarnish on a 0.25 mm silver wire in an air dielectric would be far less detrimental than the combined effects of PTFE dielectric properties and potential heat-induced tarnish from PTFE application. The air dielectric configuration results in superior signal transmission characteristics for audio applications, even with some surface tarnish present.

Your argumentation is interesting. You refer to physics that proves that effects you do not care can be ignored in the audio bandwidth and then refer to effects that the same kind of physics say that are not relevant in the audio bandwidth.

Dielectric constant and parallel wire configuration have no relevance in the audio bandwidth. Can you tell us what is exactly signal smearing? Are you addressing triboelectricity and cable microphony?