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

[Moonglow]

I rely on a mafia-based AI machine: ***** yous guys is all it says.

 

[Persuader]

gREAT pOST ......I WILL COPY YOUR LEAD LIKE bAKER cHARLIE DISHWATER

 

[longly]

As far as I can tell, AI is an outstanding analytical search engine. Its ability to find and analyze data is remarkable. However, the problem is that there's so much on the internet, much of it is junk. It appears to me that partisans have polluted the web with massive amounts of untruths and false information.

One example is the claim of the independent development of the Iron Age in Sub-Saharan Africa. It simply does not hold water. Yet, when you ask about the Iron Age, what you get is the assertion that Africa independently developed its own Iron Age. As I said, it's incredible.

But as the saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out." A system is only as good as the data it has to work with. Still, I believe AI could be a game changer when it comes to scientific research. Its ability to analyze data is truly remarkable

 

[Captain Caveman]

Did a rouge AI bot start this thread

 

[TimFitz]

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’ll second that. AI is a lazy mind’s substitute for reading or research.

Many of the people that cite it regularly here, seem to think that because the computer says so, it must be true. I suspect that a few have figured out thatit can be tricked by using loaded questions, and trying to proscribe the output.

 

[candycorn]

As is demonstrated here daily, right wing media is a substitute for thinking.

 

[Zebra]

If you copy an AI text, you should say so.
Make it clear that this is not YOUR text!

 

[Carl in Michigan]

As is demonstrated here daily, right wing media is a substitute for thinking.

Says a Democrat cult member

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Did a rouge AI bot start this thread

AI bots don't wear makeup!

 

[Delldude]

AI bots don't wear makeup!

Never know in this day and age.

 

[JLW]

AI bots don't wear makeup!

Well some do: