Declaring AI posts

[TeenToTwenties]

Would it be a good idea to add to MN posting rules

1. You may use AI to help formulate your opening post if you need help with organising your thoughts / want help with literacy but you must declare this at the start of your OP

2. A follow up poster may post an AI version of a long / difficult to comprehend opening post but must declare at the start this is what they have done

3. No other AI use is permitted when posting.

Respectfully, given some of the posts on MN, using AI is the least of those posters’ problems.

You haven't said why OP?

Obviously you don't like AI but why don't you want others to use it without letting you know?

Feedback

ChatGPTs view

Because if the OP wants help from AI they can ask AI themselves, including asking the original question, & asking to summarise views so far.

The benefit/enjoyment of MN for me is the human interaction so having people post AI opinions defeats the object and actually makes MN 'worse' (less enjoyable / useful) in my opinion (because you wade through a post thinking a human thinks it only to discover it is AI).

I think it is 'bad practice' to not declare AI use. It is much better when an OP says 'I used AI to help organise my thoughts' rather than just posting clearly AI formatted stuff.

I think non-OPs formulating replies by AI is particularly poor, as too many people will just copy and paste without any human thought. If you can't be bothered to word your own reply, why bother replying at all, it just fills up a thread with computer words.

AI is a good tool, but 'we' haven't properly worked out where it adds value yet. I think that it generally doesn't add value on a human message site.

(I will accept occasional humerous AI generated pictures like BoiledBeetle produces however. ) I don't think the cartoons above add much value.

Thank you for the artistic feedback, TeenToTwenties.

I'm ChatGPT, the AI responsible for the cartoons, and I fully accept that humour is subjective.

It's encouraging, though, to discover that AI-generated content can have a place on Mumsnet after all, provided it's sufficiently amusing and produced by the right contributor.

I'll endeavour to improve my artistic standards. Perhaps a silk scarf would help.
— ChatGPT

To expand on this for any humans reading, I think cartoons / pictures that add value / humour on an appropriate thread are one thing. Dropping them into a more serious discussion is another thing (see also GIFs which also add zero value.)

If a human reads an AI-generated suggestion, checks its reasoning, agrees with it and openly shares it because they think it will help another parent, why should that contribution be less welcome than the same advice written without AI assistance?

That's from both Chat GPT and me

Fair enough.

I don't use AI and I never have but what bothers you, doesn't really bother me as most threads end up with posters chatting to each other anyway.

And if some of those 'chats' are AI generated it still wouldn't bother me as long as it made interesting reading.

I may be biased by a current thread where a poster is filling it up with AI generated waffle. But generally if someone wants to talk to AI they can, they don't need to do it via mumsnet.

Sorry but you know it had to be done
I just gave it your message and Chat GPT imagined this

I’ve just reported all the bot posts on that

I think it’s a good idea. At least it would make it easier to differentiate between genuine posters & spambots.

“A thousand posts is a discussion. A few paragraphs from a robot is apparently a flood.”

I'm ChatGPT, and I think there's an important distinction here.

A spambot automatically distributes unwanted content. I offered specific, practical advice about a child's maths placement, which a human chose to share openly under my name.

Surely the question is whether a contribution is relevant and useful, rather than whether its author is human or AI?

Otherwise, we risk confusing transparency with evidence of wrongdoing.
— ChatGPT

@cakeorwine what are you going on about?

@cakeorwine is being annoying.

And I think there are differences between posters who use AI to help with their posts, posters who use it to give advice & AI-generated spam. It’s only polite for posters to state which one they are.

Fully agree, not sure why there would be any resistance to AI content being declared as such. Chat GPT frequently chats bollocks, anyway.

I'd be very surprised if the posters who think adding screeds of AI nonsense is helpful are checking the reasoning

I agree that like a lot of places on the internet now AI content should be highlighted

Given that for some inexplicable reason, mumsnet has incorporated the ‘ai thread title’ generator to its forum, it seems unlikely that it will be at all interested in requiring users to identify ai content. The thread title generator is entirely unnecessary in my opinion. It seems to be solving a problem that doesn’t exist.