'Calling out' AI -really necessary?

[WarmthAndDepth]

Can we not be so quick to 'call out' posts which appear to be AI generated, reporting them and more often than not getting them deleted?

I am no fan of AI, but understand that many people now use it for many things, apparently also to create and respond to posts on MN.

It may be tedious and impersonal, but if someone feels more confident constructing an argument or organising their thoughts in an opening post using ChatGPT, is that really so bad (providing the poster is a person and not a bot)?

It seems contradictory that a woman asking for advice about something deeply personal in mangled syntax and a smattering of spelling mistakes, omitting to use paragraphs or basic punctuation basically gets eye-rolled into oblivion with trite remarks like "Couldn't understand a word of that!" while posts which appear to display the hallmarks of AI (a certain slickness coupled with grammatical structures straight out of a Govian SPaG paper) get reported.

To be clear, I think casual use of AI is environmentally irresponsible and would much rather it wasn't 'a thing' but calling out its use on a site like this where a cohort of posters repeatedly shit on others whose erudition isn't deemed up to scratch isn't constructive or inclusive.

@MNHQ On threads where there have been 'accusations' of AI generated posts, and MN closes the thread 'to take a look'; what actually happens?

I swear ChatGPT is enjoying this.

Hahaha!

If posters have that much of a stressful or upsetting problem in their lives, they aren't going to want to fanny about going to all the trouble of typing it all into an AI generator when they could just start a thread and ask for help.

As for opinion pieces - well I'd rather see the poster's opinion from the horse's mouth than read something that has been re-written by a computer program.

if its the same thread im thinking of ive read through that part of the issue was yes i can agree about the posts but at the same time others seemed more focused on how and why they made the posts rather than debating the ideas themselves and after seeing other policial threads have of the responses are just how trump is omg

it seems whats the point of trying to debate normally when you get people more focused on mudslinging etc yet when someone does present ideas even if its chat then as long as chat is accurate then that should matter the most but then it needs others to be respectful and engae with the ideas presented unless they just want to name call etc ?

but how many threads do you just see name calling about musk or trump etc at least when people do use chat etc is generates content that people can debate with but then people instead of focusing on the debate topics still want to moan about how its generated etc

I would not want to engage with a thread discussing those people, especially not if any of the content might be AI generated. There's a fine line between being AI generated and AI instigated... Cross that line and we are on a very slippery slope indeed.

The problem was the obvious use of AI to generate content while the poster did not attempt to apply any analysis of the information, totally derailed the thread. No matter how much the poster was frustratingly called out on this, the response was, 'I don't have time to read, so I use AI' or words to that effect.

As one poster responded, in that case anyone could just bypass the thread and conduct the discussion directly with ChatGPT!

I can see a potential issue in some topics - and it has been pointed out - that some posters don’t feel quite up to the standard of conversation so utilise ChatGPT as a tool as an entry point.

ChatGPT is useful to get the mind thinking in different ways. However, others will generally spot generated material and resist interacting with it. The point of a discussion forum is to discuss your thoughts with others - a little generated material is fine, but I think comments need to be added along with them.

Really? What if you cannot post otherwise?

with reguards to others not interacting with it, how then can you make the difference between someone that is politically educated eg degree and is debating with full analsys and uses chat for eg spelling vs someone who uses Ai in their debates for eg researching their points then they edit the texts

it seems people or a few overall want to have the debates but only limit the tools to basic writing and what people think, but as shown at times information is that quick and unless each person has studyed politics to the same level of how they study their favourite tv show or favourite football team etc then in some cases combining human thought and chatgpt does make for a better analyis.

but then as you say the issue then is people take issue beucase of using ai but in the end if a debate can be achieved and if people can learn more especially if they are not doing research themselves eg they only study basic articles or the odd news segment etc then why are people against ai, its almost like needed a polite way of saying if you want a better debate then everyone should study in detail then no one would need AI but then people still want to debate but then the quality of the debate is more surface level because of lack of knowledge or understanding yet when someone does try to offer a detailed level of analysis suddenly its omg why u useing Ai etc?

but then which is better people debating because they only read one article or view or using Ai in combination with a persons perspectives so then a better quality debate can be achieved ?

if everyone was politically educated to an cambridge or ivy league level then there would be no use for aI but when people only use a basic news article or two then can it be said its a good debate just because its human ?

I understand why people would want to use AI to write their posts but it should be flagged as such, then other posters can choose to respond or not.

This is a good solution. A ban seems OTT as I think it is fair to turn to AI if your writing is weak for whatever reason, you want to contribute and you’re using it as a tool to help communicate. Not keen on it for any other use.

I know someone who uses ChatGPT to participate in a history forum because he struggles to write in English. Some of his posts are him polishing his thoughts (fine) but others are very obviously just generated content after he’s put whatever question is under discussion in as a prompt. I don’t engage with those.

heres a question for those that would not engage with a post if its Ai ?

why ? because it still needs a human to ask the write questions or guide the Ai to make sure the information is suitable to a debate ?

I don’t mind talking to a person who’s using AI. But I do want to know it’s a person, not a bot.

but as i understand it still has to be a person to copy and paste the inforamtiom, i think my puzzlment stems from with ai two people can post a question and ai depending on the one they use can give different answers then people can debate these.

however if the quility of responses amout to basic level where someone tries to debate but cannot keep up with the more educated posters then without ai to help then they are stuck wanting to be able to debate but not able to be good enough because if they do us Ai then other posters seem more focused on how the information was generated rather than the actual debate points

hope that makes sense

it seems people are more anti education or anti debating because of how information is gathered and put together. rather than the points themselves

What about the ChatGPT posts upthread that were an entirely fabricated post with updates about a lazy SIL?

it still needs a human to ask the write questions

You've hit the crux of the matter. The thread I mentioned earlier has since been pulled by MN (I can't find it any more) The bot/troll poster wasn't addressing the opening post, just using obvious AI generated text that was out of context, so it wasn't a human asking the right questions.

The next step is how we differentiate between humans using AI to express themselves better or help with analysing information, and bot/troll posts that don't add much but waste everyone's time and effort.

People at whatever level of education will not be able to tell whether something is written by a human or whether it is AI-driven propaganda designed to deliberately alter the public perception of whatever topic under discussion. Someone's programming the AI stuff and telling it what to do, and we have no way of knowing which agency is driving the discussion. There are agencies around the world who could use that for political or economic gain, and at a time of growing international unease, this level of power is frightening.

Eh?

If people wanted to debate with chatGPT they could log onto chatGPT.

People come on here to discuss stuff with real people.