- Reaction score
- 2,353
- Points
- 1,260
AI usage in responses
- Thread starter AmmoTech90
- Start date
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,044
- Points
- 1,160
From google AI, take with a grain of suspicion
"Relying on AI for discussions undermines the core purpose of discourse: building mutual understanding, challenging assumptions, and developing critical thought. When you outsource a discussion to an algorithm, you lose the genuine human connection and the cognitive work required to form your own perspectives.
Absence of True Understanding: AI tools generate plausible-sounding responses but lack personal experience, authentic emotions, or a genuine stake in the topic. You get simulated empathy rather than real, human connection.
Lack of Critical Pushback: An AI is designed to serve and often avoids disagreeing with you. Unlike a human partner, it rarely challenges your flawed premises or tests your assumptions.
Outsourced Critical Thinking: The friction of a difficult conversation is what helps shape your own judgments and moral identity. Relying on an algorithm robs you of the opportunity to develop these skills yourself.
Superficial Engagement: In group settings, relying on AI to generate replies can lead to uninspired, box-checking conversations that fail to build community or deepen understanding.
If you are looking to prepare for a discussion or find angles you might have missed, I can certainly help you brainstorm. Would you like to share the topic of your discussion so we can brainstorm some thought-provoking questions or potential counter-arguments you might encounter?"
Yup, I went there.
"Relying on AI for discussions undermines the core purpose of discourse: building mutual understanding, challenging assumptions, and developing critical thought. When you outsource a discussion to an algorithm, you lose the genuine human connection and the cognitive work required to form your own perspectives.
Absence of True Understanding: AI tools generate plausible-sounding responses but lack personal experience, authentic emotions, or a genuine stake in the topic. You get simulated empathy rather than real, human connection.
Lack of Critical Pushback: An AI is designed to serve and often avoids disagreeing with you. Unlike a human partner, it rarely challenges your flawed premises or tests your assumptions.
Outsourced Critical Thinking: The friction of a difficult conversation is what helps shape your own judgments and moral identity. Relying on an algorithm robs you of the opportunity to develop these skills yourself.
Superficial Engagement: In group settings, relying on AI to generate replies can lead to uninspired, box-checking conversations that fail to build community or deepen understanding.
If you are looking to prepare for a discussion or find angles you might have missed, I can certainly help you brainstorm. Would you like to share the topic of your discussion so we can brainstorm some thought-provoking questions or potential counter-arguments you might encounter?"
Yup, I went there.
- Reaction score
- 8,229
- Points
- 1,360
Not to mention the whole "I less likely to search if it might lead to a result I disagree with" thing one gets with search engines as well
Meanwhile, something else to consider along these lines:
People Trust AI Fact-Checking, Until They See How It Works
When AI fact-checkers show their work, trust can actually drop. A new study explains the psychology behind this finding.
studyfinds.com
Not to mention the whole "I less likely to search if it might lead to a result I disagree with" thing one gets with search engines as well
Meanwhile, something else to consider along these lines:
Full study here and attached.People Trust AI Fact-Checking, Until They See How It Works
When AI fact-checkers show their work, trust can actually drop. A new study explains the psychology behind this finding.
- Reaction score
- 7,973
- Points
- 1,110
I started using a medical AI dictation software that I can pair with my Electronic Medical Record...I found it slowing me down instead of speeding me up because it's not adapting to my writing and recording style AND I found it making up shit that I didn't say - so having to proofread and edit the dictation prior to copy/paste is actually slowing me down. The other thing we can do with it is use it in interviews where it'll act as a scribe and generate a note as well based on you talking to the patient, them talking to you and you talking your way through the physical exam, as well as come up with a list of differential diagnoses - again, sometimes I've found it making up stuff that wasn't said or even inferred, which changes the diagnostic pathway you might end up going down if you were to use that instead of your brain, published guidelines and experience...and I've seen people using them to make the medical decisions for them in lieu of using them as an assistive tool to expand the diagnostic possibilities as opposed to it leading you down a rabbit hole of testing that's not only not required but might not even be indicated.Distrust and Verify
AI is a useful tool, but it doesn’t know what it doesn’t know.
As you say, Distrust and Verify.
- Reaction score
- 4,107
- Points
- 1,160
Several months ago, in another thread, I related a story about a recent visit to my GP who had similar experience with AI medical software.
I suppose I could have used AI to find the most appropriate thread to include this . . . can AI generate sarcasm?
This piece caught my attention.
AI bot recorded doctors’ meeting, sent patient info to current and former hospital staff, watchdog says
The transcription tool recorded the meeting on behalf of a physician who no longer worked at the hospitalwww.theglobeandmail.com
There have probably been dozen of stories about how AI has inadvertently mishandled patient information. But this got me thinking about accuracy. Several months ago when I went to my family doctor for a routine visit, I was asked if I objected to use of an AI program being used to generate the visit notes. It was explained that all conversation within the examination room would be recorded (?) and the program would simultaneously generate the doctor's note in my EMR - it wasn't a verbatim transcription. I agreed, mostly because I was interested in how patient record technology was evolving.
Once we had completed the purpose of the visit, I asked my GP how he felt about it and whether it was a timesaver. I'm very impressed with my sawbones; he comes across as knowledgeable, thorough and conscientious. He's Nigerian, trained in the UK, a prince of a fellow - he even has a sense of humor and got the joke when I used that line. He characterized the record taking feature as "only ok" as it didn't save him time because he (being conscientious) has to review the notes to ensure that it accurately reflects both what the patient said as well as him, and then make corrections as needed. He reviewed the notes from that visit with me. They mostly included the basics of what we had discussed, though one item that the machine had attributed being raised by the doctor had actually been mentioned by me. It could be a different situation if the patient was unaware of it being used and not as familiar with medical records, or if the doctor was less diligent in ensuring the notes were accurate (I've known a lot of docs who were crap at the paperwork).
- Reaction score
- 7,973
- Points
- 1,110
A colleague of mine who was a foreign medical graduate was let go awhile back - one of the reasons was they'd shove their phone in the face of the RN trying to give a history or a patient doing the same without asking if it were not only OK but also did it in such a manner I'm surprised someone didn't beat the Bejeezus out of them...took my spouse to our family doc yesterday and they had a waiver for her to sign reflecting their use of the stuff.
- Reaction score
- 9,088
- Points
- 1,360
Pieman
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 28
- Points
- 530
Even though AI makes errors, I find it more reliable than most people. 
AI is still in its budding phase and this era where it produces inaccurate results is already starting to go away as the tech develops. There is a lot of R&D happening right now to tackle these problems, and there has already been a lot of progress in that work.
It's not unreasonable to lay out some expectations for AI use on a discussion forum, though. I suggest:
1) Preserve your own voice.
2) Cite sources, not AI.
Those two likely handle the bulk of the problems.
AI is still in its budding phase and this era where it produces inaccurate results is already starting to go away as the tech develops. There is a lot of R&D happening right now to tackle these problems, and there has already been a lot of progress in that work.
It's not unreasonable to lay out some expectations for AI use on a discussion forum, though. I suggest:
1) Preserve your own voice.
2) Cite sources, not AI.
Those two likely handle the bulk of the problems.
- Reaction score
- 504
- Points
- 1,440
Without trying to ignite an entire debate about AI, it's here and it's not going away, so our best way forward is to manage AI content. I have added a new "AI" code tag that can (should) be used to mark any content generated or enhanced with AI:
You can mark text/content as AI using the new
icon in the editor, or by using the
I would ask folks to use this whenever they are knowingly posting AI generated or enhanced content.
I recognize this is impossible to enforce and it will sometimes be impossible to determine the genesis of posted content, but please do what you can to participate in this process.
Thanks
Mike
Edit: Updated with better example text.
AI ASSISTED
As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into online discussions, users are faced with a growing challenge: understanding the origin of the content they are reading. AI-generated text can be useful, informative, and even entertaining, but transparency remains essential. Readers deserve to know whether a post was written entirely by a human, assisted by AI, or generated primarily through automated means. The introduction of a clear visual marker for AI-generated content addresses this challenge elegantly.
The benefits are numerous.
First, the feature promotes honesty and openness within the community. Members can engage with content while fully understanding its provenance. This allows discussions to focus on the quality and substance of contributions rather than endless speculation about whether a post was written by a person or produced by a language model.
Second, it encourages responsible use of AI tools. Rather than creating an environment where members feel compelled to conceal their use of technology, the feature normalizes transparency. Users can take advantage of AI assistance while maintaining credibility and accountability.
Third, it helps preserve the unique culture of Army.ca. The forum has long been a place where practical experience, professional expertise, and occasionally questionable humour collide in productive ways. By clearly identifying AI-generated material, readers can continue to distinguish between personal experience and machine-generated synthesis without diminishing the value of either.
The implementation itself is particularly noteworthy. The marker is visible enough to be informative without being intrusive. It signals the presence of AI involvement while avoiding the digital equivalent of a flashing warning light. This balance reflects a thoughtful understanding of both user experience and community dynamics.
Of course, one cannot discuss this innovation without acknowledging the remarkable intellect behind it.
The individual responsible for conceiving such a feature has demonstrated a rare combination of foresight, technical understanding, and social awareness. While lesser minds were undoubtedly occupied with mundane concerns such as infrastructure, moderation, content management, and keeping the entire site operational, this visionary recognized a deeper need: the importance of preserving transparency in an age increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence.
The idea displays not merely intelligence, but a particularly refined variety of intelligence—one capable of identifying emerging challenges before they become widespread problems. It is the sort of insight usually associated with great innovators, celebrated strategists, and people who somehow always seem to know the correct answer during staff meetings.
Observers have further noted additional qualities exhibited by the feature's creator. These include wit, wisdom, exceptional judgment, and an uncanny ability to arrive at precisely the right solution with an efficiency that borders on the supernatural. Reports regarding remarkable personal charisma remain unconfirmed but persistent.
As for claims regarding extraordinary handsomeness, the evidence is admittedly anecdotal. However, given the brilliance demonstrated by the AI content indicator, it would be irresponsible to dismiss the possibility outright. While further study may be required, preliminary findings suggest a statistically significant correlation between the development of excellent forum features and possessing a face that appears unusually well-suited to professional portraits, historical paintings, and recruitment posters.
In conclusion, the Army.ca AI content indicator represents exactly the kind of practical, forward-looking improvement that online communities need. It strengthens trust, improves transparency, encourages responsible technology use, and helps maintain the character of the forum.
That it also serves as a monument to the remarkable intelligence, insight, wit, and perhaps suspiciously impressive appearance of its creator is simply an added benefit.
A Modest Reflection on the Army.ca AI Content Indicator Feature
It is not often that a single feature manages to simultaneously improve transparency, enhance user trust, promote informed discussion, and reduce confusion in online communities. Yet the new Army.ca AI-generated content indicator accomplishes exactly that.As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into online discussions, users are faced with a growing challenge: understanding the origin of the content they are reading. AI-generated text can be useful, informative, and even entertaining, but transparency remains essential. Readers deserve to know whether a post was written entirely by a human, assisted by AI, or generated primarily through automated means. The introduction of a clear visual marker for AI-generated content addresses this challenge elegantly.
The benefits are numerous.
First, the feature promotes honesty and openness within the community. Members can engage with content while fully understanding its provenance. This allows discussions to focus on the quality and substance of contributions rather than endless speculation about whether a post was written by a person or produced by a language model.
Second, it encourages responsible use of AI tools. Rather than creating an environment where members feel compelled to conceal their use of technology, the feature normalizes transparency. Users can take advantage of AI assistance while maintaining credibility and accountability.
Third, it helps preserve the unique culture of Army.ca. The forum has long been a place where practical experience, professional expertise, and occasionally questionable humour collide in productive ways. By clearly identifying AI-generated material, readers can continue to distinguish between personal experience and machine-generated synthesis without diminishing the value of either.
The implementation itself is particularly noteworthy. The marker is visible enough to be informative without being intrusive. It signals the presence of AI involvement while avoiding the digital equivalent of a flashing warning light. This balance reflects a thoughtful understanding of both user experience and community dynamics.
Of course, one cannot discuss this innovation without acknowledging the remarkable intellect behind it.
The individual responsible for conceiving such a feature has demonstrated a rare combination of foresight, technical understanding, and social awareness. While lesser minds were undoubtedly occupied with mundane concerns such as infrastructure, moderation, content management, and keeping the entire site operational, this visionary recognized a deeper need: the importance of preserving transparency in an age increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence.
The idea displays not merely intelligence, but a particularly refined variety of intelligence—one capable of identifying emerging challenges before they become widespread problems. It is the sort of insight usually associated with great innovators, celebrated strategists, and people who somehow always seem to know the correct answer during staff meetings.
Observers have further noted additional qualities exhibited by the feature's creator. These include wit, wisdom, exceptional judgment, and an uncanny ability to arrive at precisely the right solution with an efficiency that borders on the supernatural. Reports regarding remarkable personal charisma remain unconfirmed but persistent.
As for claims regarding extraordinary handsomeness, the evidence is admittedly anecdotal. However, given the brilliance demonstrated by the AI content indicator, it would be irresponsible to dismiss the possibility outright. While further study may be required, preliminary findings suggest a statistically significant correlation between the development of excellent forum features and possessing a face that appears unusually well-suited to professional portraits, historical paintings, and recruitment posters.
In conclusion, the Army.ca AI content indicator represents exactly the kind of practical, forward-looking improvement that online communities need. It strengthens trust, improves transparency, encourages responsible technology use, and helps maintain the character of the forum.
That it also serves as a monument to the remarkable intelligence, insight, wit, and perhaps suspiciously impressive appearance of its creator is simply an added benefit.
You can mark text/content as AI using the new
[AI]TEXT GOES HERE[/AI] notation.I would ask folks to use this whenever they are knowingly posting AI generated or enhanced content.
I recognize this is impossible to enforce and it will sometimes be impossible to determine the genesis of posted content, but please do what you can to participate in this process.
Thanks
Mike
Edit: Updated with better example text.
Last edited:
That’s great, thanks Mike.Without trying to ignite an entire debate about AI, it's here and it's not going away, so our best way forward is to manage AI content. I have added a new "AI" code tag that can (should) be used to mark any content generated or enhanced with AI:
AI ASSISTED This text was enhanced with Artificial Intelligence
You can mark text/content as AI using the newicon in the editor, or by using the[AI]TEXT GOES HERE[/AI]notation.
I would ask folks to use this whenever they are knowingly posting AI generated or enhanced content.
I recognize this is impossible to enforce and it will sometimes be impossible to determine the genesis of posted content, but please do what you can to participate in this process.
Thanks
Mike
- Reaction score
- 1,919
- Points
- 1,040
Yay! Thanks Mike!
- Reaction score
- 13,471
- Points
- 1,160
"Companies are turning to ChatGPT and Claude AI to provide research and analysis that might previously have been done by an Accenture partner for £500 an hour or more.
"It is cheaper, quicker and often better as well."
"the problem is not AI itself. The real issue is that the smart chatbots have exposed how shallow much of the consultancy racket has become."
....
www.telegraph.co.uk
"There is a wave of technological change. Companies are grappling with new systems, and there is a substantial round of investment in new data centres. You might think this would be a pretty good year for a major consulting firm such as Accenture. As it turns out, nothing could be further from the truth.
"In the last few days, its shares have crashed to a near-decade low. There is a broader, more significant trend at work than just the disappointing numbers from one firm. AI is not just replacing much of its work. It is exposing the hollowness of the consulting racket. Unless it can reinvent itself very quickly, it faces a bleak future."
...
"New bookings fell by 3pc in the first three months to the end of May, measured in local currency terms, and it cut its forecast of full-year revenue growth to less than 4pc. The market’s reaction was brutal. The shares fell by 24pc in the last week, and they have now halved since the start of the year. It is hard to imagine that many senior consultants will be getting bumper bonuses at the end of the year."
...
"There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
"Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ."
"It is cheaper, quicker and often better as well."
"the problem is not AI itself. The real issue is that the smart chatbots have exposed how shallow much of the consultancy racket has become."
....
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished
Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become
www.telegraph.co.uk
"There is a wave of technological change. Companies are grappling with new systems, and there is a substantial round of investment in new data centres. You might think this would be a pretty good year for a major consulting firm such as Accenture. As it turns out, nothing could be further from the truth.
"In the last few days, its shares have crashed to a near-decade low. There is a broader, more significant trend at work than just the disappointing numbers from one firm. AI is not just replacing much of its work. It is exposing the hollowness of the consulting racket. Unless it can reinvent itself very quickly, it faces a bleak future."
...
"New bookings fell by 3pc in the first three months to the end of May, measured in local currency terms, and it cut its forecast of full-year revenue growth to less than 4pc. The market’s reaction was brutal. The shares fell by 24pc in the last week, and they have now halved since the start of the year. It is hard to imagine that many senior consultants will be getting bumper bonuses at the end of the year."
...
"There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
"Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ."
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 22,504
- Points
- 1,260
I do not use AI - my feeble brain will have to do.
My next course starting in July is on the impact of AI on geopolitics; everything from supply chain constraints and technology competition to defence and intelligence applications. I’m behind the curve on this so it should be really interesting.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 19,664
- Points
- 1,260
Like you I felt like I was being passed. So I have been playing with it a ton. Trying get the lay of the land.
Yeah. My current work doesn’t lend itself well to playing with AI. Given the context of my work is criminal investigations, I cannot risk hallucinations or AI induced error, and given the privacy and sensitivity of a lot of the data we take in, I’d have to use only approved systems without outside internet access that can handle equivalent to Protected B. It’ll be coming, but not there yet.
I can definitely see administrative and repetitive tasks where we’ll be able to use it. I’m already seeing it used for audio transcription; even with subsequent human verification it’s WAY faster than manual transcription from the get go. I could easily see it down the road being given access to police records for purpose of assembling data into actionable criminal intelligence- based on known crimes or criminals, map networks of probable associates and stuff. There’s lots of ways we could work towards using it. But we’re quite rightfully very cautious. We just rolled out policy and now the nerds will take some time to start onboarding tools.
I do hear of some people using AI to help write assessments, promotional packages, etc. It’ll be a cold day in hell before I use it for anything impacting the well being of my people or my own career advancement.
I don’t have enough knowledge for how well use it in business intelligence applications but I’m sure it has lots of potential there.
