AI usage in responses

[AmmoTech90]

Is there anyway we can regulate, ban, reduce the amount of AI slop that is replicated on this site. I am tired of some one saying, "I'm not sure but this what <AI bot xyz> says:". Followed by a bunch of text that can't be trusted.

No value added. You have to verify everything in that statement.

If you do know about a subject then go ahead and comment; if you aren't familiar, find reputable sources and learn about the subject and then comment, or just don't say anything.

Maybe who ever starts a thread can label it "No AI please." Responses AI with get nuked. Sorry for the extra work mods.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of seeing walls text that killed dozens of electronic trees for no benefit.

 

[PuckChaser]

Something we can look into but it likely wouldn't be something automated which makes it difficult for us to moderate. I hate it as well.

I would suggest if you find particular users constantly using AI with no independent thought you put them on ignore or don't reply to their post. The community can shame out the folks that are doing it too often better than the mod squad.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

AI is just a tool. Like any other media source out there. We know CBC, etc sometimes get it wrong, but that doesn't stop people from posting full page articles from them as proof of point. Are we going to censure every Wikipedia article? It is a much more dubious source than AI, yet we allow it.

I have no doubt Ammo Tech's complaint arose from my post.

All I'll say to that is, AT take a minute, go through it and please point out where the untruths or bullshit are. I'm interested in what you find.

As with every other thread here, if you find it too onerous, skip it. Nobody is forcing you to read it.

Do we really want to censure information, just on a single users complaint or because it makes some people uncomfortable? Sounds like our current government.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If you do know about a subject then go ahead and comment; if you aren't familiar, find reputable sources and learn about the subject and then comment, or just don't say anything.

Appreciate your frustration, but best we can do is treat it like any other source. Also, like any search engine result, showing the system used and the question asked/prompt entered shows more transparency. The more of the work shown, the better one can judge the info. If in doubt, it’s always legit to ask to “show your work” with any sources/information shared, as is done with media sources.

Also, in spite of warnings/caveats that AI can screw up, the buck stops with whoever shares the info.

 

[AmmoTech90]

I agree that attribution checking is important.

However every bit of information from AI needs to be questioned. If some called Stoker Dave posts something about maritime engines I'll treat it with trust until Dave proves himself unreliable (I'm sure he won't). With AI there is no inherent trust.
Combine that with the walls of text it produces there is less reason to engage with content on the site. Less AI means more meaningful engagement with the forum.

 

[mariomike]

in doubt, it’s always legit to ask to “show your work” with any sources/information shared, as is done with media sources.

For non-fiction , I walk to the library.