I Respectfully Request that the Mods and and Admins Strongly Consider rules regarding AI in Posts

[Seymour Flops]

First rule I'd recommend: No direct cutting and pasting of AI results.

I'll give my reasons:

1) AI is quickly becoming a substitute for thinking. This is a forum for thinking people to exchange ideas with the rule against not shouting others down, or interrupting them automatically enforced by the turn-taking asymetrical format. I doubt that people are using bots to find AI responses and posting them, but is it much better if the go to Google AI or "Pilot" (which should be named "Autopilot") and copy-and-paste?

2) Lengthy cut-and-pastes derived from asking AI a question are very boring. It slows down debate, or stops it when the other person refuses to debate AI. It hinders the purpose of this forum.

3) AI cut-and-pastes are presented as self-evident. Not so, they come from articles on the internet. Google AI provides links to that material. So, why not simply ask the AI question, and then click on the link and use that as the source? We can refute or accept the source and debate its validity.

4) AI companies are under fire for using copyrighted material to "train AI," which many believe amounts to reselling the work of others without giving them compensation or credit. I doubt that a forum like this would ever be implicated for allowing AI cut-and-pastes, but the ethical consideration is really no different. The simple act of clicking on the link in AI and quoting from AI's source takes that out of the equation.

I've been guilty of using AI quotes as a shorthand way of making a point. But no more, because it reduces the quality of my posts, IMHO. I believe the forum would be better off without it.

 

[Moonglow]

You don't want links either

 

[Darkwind]

First rule I'd recommend: No direct cutting and pasting of AI results.

I'll give my reasons:

1) AI is quickly becoming a substitute for thinking. This is a forum for thinking people to exchange ideas with the rule against not shouting others down, or interrupting them automatically enforced by the turn-taking asymetrical format. I doubt that people are using bots to find AI responses and posting them, but is it much better if the go to Google AI or "Pilot" (which should be named "Autopilot") and copy-and-paste?

2) Lengthy cut-and-pastes derived from asking AI a question are very boring. It slows down debate, or stops it when the other person refuses to debate AI. It hinders the purpose of this forum.

3) AI cut-and-pastes are presented as self-evident. Not so, they come from articles on the internet. Google AI provides links to that material. So, why not simply ask the AI question, and then click on the link and use that as the source? We can refute or accept the source and debate its validity.

4) AI companies are under fire for using copyrighted material to "train AI," which many believe amounts to reselling the work of others without giving them compensation or credit. I doubt that a forum like this would ever be implicated for allowing AI cut-and-pastes, but the ethical consideration is really no different. The simple act of clicking on the link in AI and quoting from AI's source takes that out of the equation.

I've been guilty of using AI quotes as a shorthand way of making a point. But no more, because it reduces the quality of my posts, IMHO. I believe the forum would be better off without it.

I disagree with this.

AI, if used properly, is not an impediment to debate.

To do as you ask is to eliminate the cut&paste features of the software.

A good debate, however, when using AI as a source of information, by necessity, must include links to sources used. You know, like a bibliography in a book.

 

[Natural Citizen]

AI is quickly becoming a substitute for thinking.

Just to add...so are random thirty second TikTok videos accompanied by a one or two liner that's usually about as deep as a mud puddle.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I disagree with this.

AI, if used properly, is not an impediment to debate.

To do as you ask is to eliminate the cut&paste features of the software.

A good debate, however, when using AI as a source of information, by necessity, must include links to sources used. You know, like a bibliography in a book.

Thank you, sincerely. I was concerned that no one would disagree and there would be no debate.

 

[toobfreak]

First rule I'd recommend: No direct cutting and pasting of AI results.

I have never once accessed AI for anything, not to even look at much less answer stuff for me. I don't want to even be on the AI radar grid. I neither want nor need AI for anything; I'm quite capable of doing my own research and writing/forming my own conclusions.

Anything I've ever posted here regardless of length was all 100% toob. And it always will be.

AFAIC, accessing AI for a paper, an article, or whatever is cheating/plagiarism.

 

[Chuz Life]

I have never once accessed AI for anything, not to even look at much less answer stuff for me. I don't want to even be on the AI radar grid. I neither want nor need AI for anything; I'm quite capable of doing my own research and writing/forming my own conclusions.

Anything I've ever posted here regardless of length was all 100% toob. And it always will be.

AFAIC, accessing AI for a paper, an article, or whatever is cheating/plagiarism.

I've grown to appreciate AI. It is still far from being infallible, but if you have a particular thought or premise that you want to explore, AI is very handy and, for the most part, objective.

In chat mode, it can even help refine debate arguments because, as it argues with you, it provides sources (especially if you demand sources) that alone saves a lot of time.

Here is a recent example.

I am personally opposed to "birthright" citizenship, and I wanted to fact check myself and run some of my observations past AI - so I could get an idea about what the responses might be from another actual poster.

I think it went well and it certainly helped me get a better idea of what I am up against with my point of view.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/hxbWYwMNyhVLzfT4r6TaaEMnI

 

[Darkwind]

I've grown to appreciate AI. It is still far from being infallible, but if you have a particular thought or premise that you want to explore, AI is very handy and, for the most part, objective.

In chat mode, it can even help refine debate arguments because, as it argues with you, it provides sources (especially if you demand sources) that alone saves a lot of time.

Here is a recent example.

I am personally opposed to "birthright" citizenship, and I wanted to fact check myself and run some of my observations past AI - so I could get an idea about what the responses might be from another actual poster.

I think it went well and it certainly helped me get a better idea of what I am up against with my point of view.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/hxbWYwMNyhVLzfT4r6TaaEMnI

You should see some of the convos I've had with Perplexity. I like that AI as it has a deep research mode and it will provide a list of linked sources.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I don't want to even be on the AI radar grid.

Too late, toobs...

 

[Chuz Life]

You should see some of the convos I've had with Perplexity. I like that AI as it has a deep research mode and it will provide a list of linked sources.

It (AI) also doesn't have that all too human tendency towards changing the subject, moving goalposts etc.

And though it's a bit rare, it will tell you if you catch it contradicting itself.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

[snipped]

AFAIC, accessing AI for a paper, an article, or whatever is cheating/plagiarism.

No its not. But in the hands of idiots it's downright dangerous but that is because many people don't know how to use it properly let alone responsibly.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

So I asked Chatgpt what's the best way to deal with old farts on a messageboard who dont want to use this new fangled technology we're calling A.I.

If someone in a discussion forum refuses to accept or engage with ChatGPT-generated responses, here are some effective and respectful ways to respond, depending on the context and tone of the conversation:

---

​

"Rather than focusing on who or what wrote the response, let's evaluate the ideas on their merits. If there's an error or weak point, I'm open to revising or discussing it."

Why it works: It shifts the conversation to substance rather than origin, which is the point of most discussions.

---

​

"I used ChatGPT to help formulate or clarify my point, but I'm still responsible for what I post. If you disagree, let's debate the content."

Why it works: It shows you’re not blindly copying, but using AI as a tool—just like using a calculator, search engine, or grammar checker.

---

​

"ChatGPT doesn’t just make things up—it synthesizes ideas from a wide range of sources. If something seems off, let's fact-check it together."

Why it works: Some critics assume AI = unreliable. This opens the door to collaborative scrutiny rather than dismissal.

---

​

"Do we reject all tools, like Google or Grammarly, too? ChatGPT is just another tool to help express ideas clearly and efficiently."

Why it works: It calls out possible double standards in tool usage without sounding defensive.

---

​

If the forum has specific rules against AI-generated content, then it’s best to respect that:

"Understood. I’ll make sure to summarize or rephrase insights in my own words moving forward."

---

What to Avoid:​

• Don't argue that ChatGPT is "always right"—it’s not.
• Avoid copy-pasting long AI responses without adding your own voice.
• Don’t mock or dismiss people who are skeptical—many have valid concerns about reliability or authenticity.

 

[Chuz Life]

Too late, toobs...

View attachment 1141028

I had to take it one further!

https://x.com/i/grok/share/ityWix66cTqeT8Ql3KfHdPDQK

I'm thinking twin reverbs now!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I just post that which comes from my own brain.


It makes everything so much easier.

 

[toobfreak]

I've grown to appreciate AI. It is still far from being infallible, but if you have a particular thought or premise that you want to explore, AI is very handy and, for the most part, objective.

That is all very well and good, still, I choose not to get online with AI or have it do any work or thinking for me. It might make things easier, but the inevitable result will be my growing dependency on it while thinking less and less for myself.

When I draft or write something, I want it to be 100% Toob.

 

[Chuz Life]

That is all very well and good, still, I choose not to get online with AI or have it do any work or thinking for me. It might make things easier, but the inevitable result will be my growing dependency on it while thinking less and less for myself.

When I draft or write something, I want it to be 100% Toob.

You see it as a crutch, I see it as a tool.

Whenever I can, I find a schematic before I start troubleshooting an electronic circuit.

Do I have the ability to draw or create my own schematics? Sure. At least to some extent.

Even then, I would probably reference other circuits for ideas and perspectives.

 

[toobfreak]

Too late, toobs...

HaHa. While all of it is basically pretty accurate, and ignoring the many gaping holes, I also recognize that about 50% of it is also simply plagiarized from things I actually wrote myself and simply copied by AI.

That puts AI on an equal footing with Joe Biden.

I have the benefit of near total recall, especially of things I said myself which were significant to me.

AI is a fraud. Just ask it how I eliminated the need for RIAA equalization, how I did away with the fog of magnetic hysteresis within the phono pick up, or many other things in the circuit topology to revolutionize the clarify of music reproduction to see what I mean.

All AI is doing is copying and pasting some of my easy to find own words.

If AI can explain HOW I did these things, and duplicate my research, I'll buy Elon a new Tesla...

 

[trevorjohnson83]

AI has been trouble for me because the math equations have been goorooboogooly guck, but here's one in PDF see if the math comes through, here's what I said to AI, kind of incomplete : /

gravity is induced by the core and only the core, the core is an area where there is no radiation by single atoms spinning or vibrating, the atoms all work together to drive the spin of the planet. Aether does not flow into the core like a drain carrying matter with it, the core atoms being 100 insulator atoms create the gravity field through the balance I mentioned. When two objects pull together from gravity, its because of the equilibrium seeking nature of heat, since the heat in the core also increases from movement through the aether alone,

 

[Zebra]

sometimes i ask AI ... but i never use it in the forum

 

[Correll]

First rule I'd recommend: No direct cutting and pasting of AI results.

I'll give my reasons:

1) AI is quickly becoming a substitute for thinking. This is a forum for thinking people to exchange ideas with the rule against not shouting others down, or interrupting them automatically enforced by the turn-taking asymetrical format. I doubt that people are using bots to find AI responses and posting them, but is it much better if the go to Google AI or "Pilot" (which should be named "Autopilot") and copy-and-paste?

2) Lengthy cut-and-pastes derived from asking AI a question are very boring. It slows down debate, or stops it when the other person refuses to debate AI. It hinders the purpose of this forum.

3) AI cut-and-pastes are presented as self-evident. Not so, they come from articles on the internet. Google AI provides links to that material. So, why not simply ask the AI question, and then click on the link and use that as the source? We can refute or accept the source and debate its validity.

4) AI companies are under fire for using copyrighted material to "train AI," which many believe amounts to reselling the work of others without giving them compensation or credit. I doubt that a forum like this would ever be implicated for allowing AI cut-and-pastes, but the ethical consideration is really no different. The simple act of clicking on the link in AI and quoting from AI's source takes that out of the equation.

I've been guilty of using AI quotes as a shorthand way of making a point. But no more, because it reduces the quality of my posts, IMHO. I believe the forum would be better off without it.

I have definitely seen this being done and having the effect described.