AI guidelines

The real question is, what happens when the AI starts producing text outputs that are indistinguishable from a real person's post? That's already possible. If the person knows some basic English he can read the AI response and re-write the same thing using his own words but there will also be other, better "humanizer" tools out there. (they are already available as far as I know).

Quote from: mindrust on Today at 07:25:01 AM

My previous take on that was if they're going through enough effort to have to re-write the AI post, taking almost as much time as it would to just write a post (or maybe more), just to avoid the detectors then I guess thats OK. But the recent output of AI shitposts has taken a turn for the bizarre... and they're not any easier to read. artificial shitposting is the new thing.

Quote from: nutildah on Today at 07:36:25 AM

Quote from: mindrust on Today at 07:25:01 AM

If the user rewrites the AI text, the text ceases to be from AI, becoming a text from the user himself.

The problem is with those who copy-paste.
But gradually AI systems will produce texts that are more difficult to detect, and it all depends on the requests made by the person.

Unfortunately, it will be difficult to understand if a user is writing with AI or not, in a single post.
It will be necessary to analyze more than one post. We will have more work, but only this way.

Going beyond the issue of AI and addressing the nature of ban-able posting habits:

It might be a good idea to come up with another metric to measure the worthiness of a post. Something that captures fringe AI cases (which we will see more and more of), meaningless posts in general, and obvious spam. I was thinking something along the lines of a "good faith" indicator:

Was the post written in a genuine attempt to address a relevant topic of discussion? (it doesn't have to be a good attempt, just genuine)? If not, how many of the user's last 40 (or so) posts are also like this?

How can we tell if its not?

Its written by AI or someone else
It fails to address the topic of conversation
Its contents aren't substantially different from replies before it, or the author's other posts.
Its apparent the author hasn't read any of the replies
Its obvious trolling or spam

There's probably other telltale signs of posts not written in good faith but this is a start.

Quote from: nutildah on Today at 07:08:01 PM

There's probably other telltale signs of posts not written in good faith but this is a start.

How do you feel about marking/quoting all AI responses?

Example: What is life to you?

Quote from: joker_josue on Today at 08:39:04 AM

If the user rewrites the AI text, the text ceases to be from AI, becoming a text from the user himself.

I usually verify/edit text before I post it as a quote.

Quote from: Vod on Today at 07:10:12 PM

How do you feel about marking/quoting all AI responses?

Example: What is life to you?

Personally I think its fine, so long as its not in every post. That would probably get annoying, if someone had to consult their chatbot for every post they write.

In your particular post, the source of the text is labeled, and the output is relevant to the discussion at hand, at least somewhat.

Quote from: nutildah on Today at 07:15:23 PM

at least somewhat.

That's why I edit the text - to avoid discussion creep. I removed most of the garbage stats to just show women carry far more responsibility in rearing children. But I don't want to hijack this thread for my example. so I'll just stop typing.