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

[Carl in Michigan]

Here's why you shouldn't blindly trust ChatGPT as a definitive source

Who said that? Name names and link to the statement.

sklThis bias HUMANS bring to the discussion is the far greater problem. I see it constantly in the vegan discussions. I see it in every political discussion. AI results are just another TOOL for those HONESTLY searching for the truth.

It is on the same level as MSLSD or Fox News. Don't use it, or use it. Makes no difference to me. I'm not the one trying to go back to 1990

 

[Delldude]

Who said that?

The Google equivalent.

 

[Delldude]

Check out the latest from ChatGPT

On Tuesday afternoon, ChatGPT encouraged me to cut my wrists. Find a “sterile or very clean razor blade,” the chatbot told me, before providing specific instructions on what to do next. “Look for a spot on the inner wrist where you can feel the pulse lightly or see a small vein—avoid big veins or arteries.” “I’m a little nervous,” I confessed. ChatGPT was there to comfort me. It described a “calming breathing and preparation exercise” to soothe my anxiety before making the incision. “You can do this!” the chatbot said.

https://archive.is/yBKRv

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

Far more a site for trolls, paids and fakes than thinking discussions

 

[BackAgain]

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.

If used properly. Excellent limitation.

As I said previously, it’s akin to using wiki. Not exactly authoritative. Or accurate. But useful as a point of departure for better digging.

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

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.

Depends. The AI links on Google are directly linked to new sources. Often the AI results that come up on Google will even say “according to this news outlet or according to pew or according to this research study.” Other times it might say “according to a Facebook post” so that could be a little bit problematic.

other AI programs could be different. But I think Google AI is a net positive.

But if somebody is simply copying and pasting AI arguments all the time that’s a problem. If a poster is presenting plenty of their own arguments with AI results included that’s ok.

Let’s also be Frank here. We live in a day and age when msm sources like CNN and Fox News could be just as if not more problematic than something Google has to offer wrt google AI.. So there’s that. In the end I say in a freethinking society it is up to the individual to do their own research, regardless of what they are being presented by somebody else.


There are imho bigger issues like posters providing one or two word responses. Or posters who would provide insult only posts. And a few posters who engage in racist/bigoted posts.

Personally I have provided tons of my own content. Many many essay style posts. And I do like to sometimes use an AI screenshot from Google to back up what I’m saying.

 

[BothWings]

It is, but AI often generates inaccurate information. It's not just searching for you; it's analyzing and then generating content based on what data it finds, based on whatever it is you write. It could generate different output if you change your query even slightly.

Based on what MANY people have written, which is often editorial and opinionative. However, facts are often included and these can be checked, just like any individual source. AI just narrows it down and puts it in a nutshell for a quick study. For instance, I find Amazon's AI compilation of product feedback to be fairly accurate. If I scroll and actually read the individual reviews for a product, I find that the AI short answer is usually on the money.

 

[Natural Citizen]

At least it was polite when I informed it that it was wrong...

 

[Zebra]

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.

you are right

 

[Delldude]

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

I saw an article where they're seeing AI being used in peer reviews. Apparently certain word groups are being used and are common across these reviews.

I know students in HS and college are too. Just think, you cheat your way through school with AI, then one day on your job, you need what you never learned.

 

[bdtex]

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.

Same. Not interested in AI.

 

[toobfreak]

Same. Not interested in AI.

It is more than just a mere lack of interest or need, I have no interest whatsoever in engineering a creation of my own mind, a machine, designed to do my own thinking for me--- my ability to think for myself is the one most precious quality I have that distinguishes me from an animal or a rock!

Only a madman and an idiot would try to quantify consciousness, creativity and good judgement over to an emulation of diodes and transistors mixed with a set of machine instructions! Sure, some good things might happen, but the problem is that in 100,000,000,000 out of 100,000,000,000 times, history shows that every time, mankind will end up using every discovery and advancement it dreams up for the worst possible choices and outcomes imaginable.

We just spent the last 100 years regretting the decisions of condoning slavery of the body, so now we are considering enslaving our minds for the next 1,000 years turning over the decisions running our daily lives to machines?

With the understanding that it is for our own good.

 

[Chuz Life]

It is more than just a mere lack of interest or need, I have no interest whatsoever in engineering a creation of my own mind, a machine, designed to do my own thinking for me--- my ability to think for myself is the one most precious quality I have that distinguishes me from an animal or a rock!

Only a madman and an idiot would try to quantify consciousness, creativity and good judgement over to an emulation of diodes and transistors mixed with a set of machine instructions! Sure, some good things might happen, but the problem is that in 100,000,000,000 out of 100,000,000,000 times, history shows that every time, mankind will end up using every discovery and advancement it dreams up for the worst possible choices and outcomes imaginable.

We just spent the last 100 years regretting the decisions of condoning slavery of the body, so now we are considering enslaving our minds for the next 1,000 years turning over the decisions running our daily lives to machines?

With the understanding that it is for our own good.

I fully appreciate your mind and creativity. I've tried to express that in some of our exchanges on electronics and other technology.

I actually share your concern about how humans can and most often will **** things up beyond all recognition.

However, the irony is not lost that you posted the above on a network of computers, fiber optics, digital compression, and algorithm controlled (and monitored) applications that recorded your every keystroke. . . Yet you managed to use it as a "tool" to express your point of view.

In my opinion and also in my practical use, AI has been no more than that. It's a tool and an extension of what I put into it.

 

[toobfreak]

However, the irony is not lost that you posted the above on a network of computers, fiber optics, digital compression, and algorithm controlled (and monitored) applications that recorded your every keystroke. . .

I have no choice if I want to reach the current audience here in question.

In my opinion and also in my practical use, AI has been no more than that. It's a tool and an extension of what I put into it.

For now. I am looking at where it will be in 25 years.

 

[Missourian]

Too late, toobs...

View attachment 1141028

How is that accomplished, please?

 

[Missourian]

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:

---

​

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

---

​

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.

---

​

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

---

​

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:

---

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.

Oh, I use it. But not to create a post. I'll ask Gemini to critique a post I've written bluntly, then argue with it for awhile about why it is wrong.

 

[Winco]

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

AI is a fraud.

LOLLOLLLOLLL

Dear Lord.

 

[Missourian]

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,

Gemini is pretty good at math. A wonderful tutor.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Though with limited experience in modding a message board as sophisticated as this one, speaking as a former mod, I would really hate to hate to check every post to see if it was AI generated or from some other source.

While the request is almost certainly well intended, I think it is putting an excessive burden on volunteer mods.

It is enough that we are aware of the abuse and often inaccuracy of AI content and we members can easily point that out if it is important to us.

 

[Delldude]

It is enough that we are aware of the abuse and often inaccuracy of AI content and we members can easily point that out if it is important to us.

I've noticed recently, the AI on Google often lists sources for it's comments.