Closing USMB Threads

[GLASNOST]

AI produced stories (even if obvious) ought not to be closed just because the moderator doesn’t agree with the message it conveys. When I see MSM reports that are full of shit I don’t beg the moderators to have it removed. I may comment on the BS the reports spew but I don’t ask for the one who linked it have his thread tossed out. I don’t care how you twist it and turn it - closing threads is CENSORSHIP plain and simple. If you think the report is bogus just say so and maybe generate other comments or even discussions why you think it is bogus. I do not see the MSM as the source of undeniable truth or maybe there really are thousands of WMDs spread all over Irak? Furthermore, some of these AI reports declare openly that “the adversary” hasn’t confirmed the report and is, therefore, proof of its own CENSORSHIP. It is worth discussing even if it’s to criticize the report itself. But removing it is CENSORSHIP. If CENSORSHIP is within USMBs policy then I think it should be changed. If a report is clearly BS (and some are) then it will be criticized and shunned. What’s wrong with that? What damage will it cause us to see it? Facial acne? Stunt our growth?

Oh! This thread will be closed for sure .....

 

[MisterBeale]

I disagree.

AI slop is becoming the bane of our existence.

If a story is true, it takes no time at all to find some evidence in long form from a place not known to create content from AI slop.

I do not see the MSM as the source of undeniable truth

This has to mostly do with how this place keeps the lights on.
It matters very little what folks think or feel about establishment narratives. The interlocking directorate indirectly control everything that is supported by advertising.

AWS and G00glie ad sense has requirements for funding and advertising. I do not know what they are, but when the controversy about Trump's "stolen election," happened, this is how big tech controlled all information.

I am assuming this is what has caused the language censorship to become more severe around here as well. I honestly don't think any of the staff or owners cared about that issue. . . Newspeak (aka political correctness,) is a corporate thing related to the on-coming technocracy.


The only way to get around all this is to not have any advertising. If that is the case, then folks either have to pay to be members, or else someone one that is uber wealthy pays to keep the lights on.

 

[gipper]

AI produced stories (even if obvious) ought not to be closed just because the moderator doesn’t agree with the message it conveys. When I see MSM reports that are full of shit I don’t beg the moderators to have it removed. I may comment on the BS the reports spew but I don’t ask for the one who linked it have his thread tossed out. I don’t care how you twist it and turn it - closing threads is CENSORSHIP plain and simple. If you think the report is bogus just say so and maybe generate other comments or even discussions why you think it is bogus. I do not see the MSM as the source of undeniable truth or maybe there really are thousands of WMDs spread all over Irak? Furthermore, some of these AI reports declare openly that “the adversary” hasn’t confirmed the report and is, therefore, proof of its own CENSORSHIP. It is worth discussing even if it’s to criticize the report itself. But removing it is CENSORSHIP. If CENSORSHIP is within USMBs policy then I think it should be changed. If a report is clearly BS (and some are) then it will be criticized and shunned. What’s wrong with that? What damage will it cause us to see it? Facial acne? Stunt our growth?

Oh! This thread will be closed for sure .....

I don’t see much difference between an AI produced story and one produced by the corporate media. In many instances, it’s all propaganda in the end.

 

[JoeB131]

I think using AI-generated content should be a bannable offense here.

 

[citygator]

I have no issue with people using AI to find content just like they google content.

If the question is can you type a prompt into AI and post it's answer as a post... I think that is lazy but at least its more thorough than posting something from Western Journal or some right wing slop source.

Maybe create a subforum for AI generated original posts so people can decide whether to interact?

 

[GLASNOST]

I don’t see much difference between an AI produced story and one produced by the corporate media. In many instances, it’s all propaganda in the end.

I agree completely.

If the question is can you type a prompt into AI and post it's answer as a post... I think that is lazy

Agree.

but at least its more thorough than posting something from Western Journal or some right wing slop source.

Well, right or left it's the same slop ... if slop it is.

Maybe create a subforum for AI generated original posts

But if a forum is labelled "AI" then your (mine, his, hers, our) expectations are prejudiced even before we read it.

so people can decide whether to interact?

Shouldn't we be doing that anyway?

*** I don't like AI generated anything but if it makes me think then it's just as good as any source.

 

[martybegan]

I think using AI-generated content should be a bannable offense here.

Another cold day in hell. Agreed.

 

[MisterBeale]

But if a forum is labelled "AI" then your (mine, his, hers, our) expectations are prejudiced even before we read it.

That would be a good thing.

Some folks aren't real good at identifying AI garbage it has now gotten so advanced.

 

[Unkotare]

... I don't like AI generated anything but if it makes me think ...

It can't perform miracles.

 

[Kruska]

I have no issue with people using AI to find content just like they google content.

If the question is can you type a prompt into AI and post it's answer as a post... I think that is lazy but at least its more thorough than posting something from Western Journal or some right wing slop source.

Maybe create a subforum for AI generated original posts so people can decide whether to interact?

I think GLASNOST is not referring to AI generated sourcing, e.g. google AI

But AI generated videos - where all kinds of "experts" claim whatever fits their respective agenda.
As for the latter, I do not see a difference between an unsubstantiated post/opinion or presenting an unsubstantiated AI video.

In conclusion: if one wants to ban a post or thread due to beholding an unsubstantiated opinion or video - then one would have to ban or delete about 85% of USMB threads and posts.

 

[GLASNOST]

I think GLASNOST is not referring to AI generated sourcing, e.g. google AI

But AI generated videos - where all kinds of "experts" claim whatever fits their respective agenda.

Yes.

... I do not see a difference between an unsubstantiated post/opinion or presenting an unsubstantiated AI video.

That is the point.

In conclusion: if one wants to ban a post or thread due to beholding an unsubstantiated opinion or video - then one would have to ban or delete about 85% of USMB threads and posts.

Precisely. If one would copy and paste the opinion/information expressed (rather than link the video itself) and pass it off as your own words wouldn’t it be allowed as a legitimate response, subject to the praise or criticism by the forum members? You probably wouldn’t even be accused of plagiarism because no one in disagreement would have ever seen the video. In any case, the video is a legitimate opinion by whoever made it. I agree that it could include false information but then so do the reports/videos made by the MSM which is interesting because AI generated videos are being removed because the information hasn’t been substantiated with “credible” MSM.