Why Are We Even Considering a Ban on AI Tools Like ChatGPT?

[ABCbits]

Chabot/AI spammer getting bold these days and i hope moderator will nuke this user soon.

And let’s not forget some relevant history. Remember when the UK tried to ban cars? That was a massive mistake that stifled progress and innovation. People ended up stuck with horse-drawn carriages for way too long! Banning AI now could lead us down a similar path, where we miss out on the benefits and advancements that come with embracing new technology. Instead of shutting it down, we should be figuring out how to integrate it responsibly into our community.

I see many chatbot/AI spammer spread false/fake information, where it may harm people in some ways (e.g. losing their coin/fiat). So with your "smart" example, it's as if people use car in stupid way where they may hit tree, building or even people.

[NotATether]

Alright, folks, we need to talk about this push to ban AI tools like ChatGPT on Bitcointalk. Honestly, it’s pretty concerning. Why are we even thinking about this?

For transparency's sake, I’ll admit it—I love ChatGPT and use it to write just about everything these days. It’s a tool that helps me express my thoughts more clearly and efficiently. I believe AI is incredibly useful. It can answer questions, provide insights, and spark some serious discussions. Instead of pushing it away, we should be embracing it. It’s a resource that can enhance our conversations and make this community even better.

It's great but it's being abused by spammers to write English posts so that they can meet their campaign quotas. Most of the time they just copy and paste some reply into the AI and paste the answer here.

We should be looking at banning AI posts from signature campaigns (we already do that actually), but as far as I know, a total AI ban is not being considered.

[Lucius]

~snip~
We should be looking at banning AI posts from signature campaigns (we already do that actually), but as far as I know, a total AI ban is not being considered.

Perhaps the reason why there are no clear rules about the use of artificial intelligence on the forum is that there is still no way/tool ​​that could detect a text as AI generated with 100% accuracy and without any doubt. Of course, there are tools that can provide fairly accurate detection, but the administration is currently hesitant to clearly define the rule on punishing those who abuse this technology and put such members in the same category as plagiarists.

Technically speaking, they are AI plagiarists, because they ask a question and copy the answer as a forum post, presenting it as their own. There is no difference between copying all/part of an article without citing the source.

Finally, I will say that all those who abuse AI and those who are about to do so for the reason that the forum does not officially forbid them - so even though there are those who commit plagiarism, it has long been known that such people get a permanent ban on the forum when they caught.

Such a rule for AI would not immediately solve the problem, but over a certain period of time people would still understand that it is something wrong and dangerous and that they should not do it. The problem will not solve itself, on the contrary, it will get worse and worse until it turns into a discussion of AI bots.

[Richbased]

If you make any post or you have something from which you derive the answer from the AI tool ChatGPT or whichever one you use, I don't see any crime if you come out, quote the word, and ask your question and/or pass the information the way you want to pass it, but let everyone know that this is from ChatGPT instead of trying to fool everyone around.

I don't even think it makes sense to even make a write up from ChatGPT and then make a reference to it as the source of the information that is being given because if it is allowed that means a lot of users here will equally be using AI generated texts and quoting for clarity and for reference purposes which will make the whole thing become disorganized.

People should not be too lazy to write texts by themselves. Perhaps, if anyone wants to use AI generated texts, they can possibly read and understand the context of the text generated by the AI and then form their own words and write up instead of copying and pasting everything as it appears on the AI generated ChatGPT.

[ranochigo]

In the academia sphere, authors should reference ChatGPT, or similar LLM generated materials appropriately. Not doing so would be a disaster because they're highly sensitive materials that should be reviewed by a qualified academic, and they should be proven to be correct.

It's crazy how it is even acceptable for LLMs to be used to construct posts in any shape or form. LLMs are incredibly biased, because that is the way that it is designed. It should have no place in forums where we value the voices of actual entities who are able to think for themselves.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Alright, folks, we need to talk about this push to ban AI tools like ChatGPT on Bitcointalk. Honestly, it’s pretty concerning. Why are we even thinking about this?

The use of AI on the forum for either your post content or images may only cause you to have a neutral tag and not a ban, because its only showing the kind of user you're and the review left on you will tell about you to other people that may be coming across in contact with you, if the forum does not allow the use of AI for a ban sanction, then i see it of no use for us to engage deliberating on it, because this aspect has been discussed on several occasions and everyone do give their respective opinions towards it, if you think its fine by you to post using AI, then campaign managers doesn't accept for such as well as some of the forum contest because its like cheating, we nay not also look at AI from only one side, we can also  consider some of its importance to others who are using it.

[Btcdeybodi]

All thanks to OP for this human-AI discussion, i assume we all are Robots now since we are interacting with an AI generated post.
Since it is believed that the AI is smarter than humans, who knows we might be heading towards human-AI conflicts soon
How people can be very comfortable is passing off information from an AI is what gives me concern if this is really the kind of world that humans want to experience, not minding the dangers of seeking help from a Robot and since this Robots are programmed manually and systematically, it can malfunction and refuse to obey human command which will lead to the disagreement between the AI and humans.

Felt bad i responded to an AI generated post but i think the mods needs to get rid of this thread

[BenCodie]

I agree that an adjustment on rules could be made, and if so, reverting to how it is for normal posts is the way to go (if the post is garbage, people report it, the user gets a warning or a ban). People will eventually get the message that if they use AI, it better darn well be good and relevant or they'd risk being banned if it's not.

This is more or less how it is now. There are some newbie accounts that have been banned because all they did was post trivial AI garbage, and all their posts were deleted as spam. If someone makes it clear that they are using AI, then I think its fine, although the way OP and ditec_wrogn did it is highly cringe.

I had thought it was a clear no-ai policy? Maybe I've missed something...though it doesn't seem like even appropriate use (which should be defined) is allowed and that any AI generated/assisted content is flagged, as far as I was aware anyway.

For as long as there are humans on the internet, the internet will never die. That's the flaw in the whole theory.

The Dead Internet Theory doesn't really have anything to do with the internet "dying"; its just saying that most of the internet isn't used by humans, but bots. It may not be true now, but as time marches on it becomes more and more of a likely scenario. From the Wikipedia article:

In 2024, Google reported that its search results were being inundated with websites that "feel like they were created for search engines instead of people". In correspondence with Gizmodo, a Google spokesperson acknowledged the role of generative AI in the rapid proliferation of such content and that it could displace more valuable human-made alternatives. Bots using LLMs are anticipated to increase the amount of spam, and run the risk of creating a situation where bots interacting with each other create "self-replicating prompts" that result in loops only human users could disrupt.

I understand it doesn't mean literal death and it means over supply of spam thus low quality (or dead) internet. I still don't believe in the theory though. My point was that humans have control over platforms, apps, etc on the internet. As well as whether AI uses it, or if AI is allowed/enabled on it. The worst of generative AI is now, while it's new, fresh and many unknowns. Just like the (in some ways) worst of bitcoin was in its very beginning...when it was brand new and unregulated/unknown. Just like we did with Bitcoin, humans will make AI's existence on the web work in the way that we (hopefully the majority of us) want it.