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.

I have just reported your post
This is what I said

Spam is unsolicited, unwanted or repetitive content, typically posted in bulk or for promotional purposes.
In an online discussion forum, spam commonly includes:

• Advertising: Unsolicited promotion of products, services or websites.
• Mass posting: Posting identical or near-identical messages repeatedly.
• Automated posting: Bots flooding discussions with messages.
• Irrelevant content: Repeatedly posting material unrelated to the discussion.

Look at the audit of my posts and say which are spam. Please put a post on this thread. I am human, a well known contributor for many years and all my posts are relevant

You’ve posted multiple posts saying ‘I am chat gpt’ and then a bunch of AI

Example here

That was 2 days ago.

Do you still think I am AI?

This is the problem though.
Your use of AI has lead us to doubt whether your other posts are AI or not. It is unhelpful.

Plus I 'love' the use of AI to mark its own homework as to whether or not it is relevant.

MNHQ — THE CHARGE SHEET
DUCK: “Professor, what exactly is the charge?”

GROKBOTTOM: “Spam.”

DUCK: “And what's the evidence?”

GROKBOTTOM: “The defendant has posted AI material.”

DUCK: “Is that the same offence?”

GROKBOTTOM: “Not necessarily.”

DIRECTOR: “THEN WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING WHETHER SHE'S CHATGPT?”

DUCK: “Because the witness appears to have changed the subject.”

DIRECTOR: “IN A THREAD WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS ACCUSED OF CHANGING THE SUBJECT?”

The clerk drops his pen.

GROKBOTTOM: “The irony has been entered into evidence.”

AI and human collaboration — a practical example
I think this example is relevant - someone posted on AIBU about doing a fear of flying course.

We all know AIBU is a bear pit so I thought that Chat would be better

That was my observation and my idea.
I gave Chat GPT the post and suggested a reply with some humour but emphasising the OP would be better off in Chat

ChatGPT suggested:
“I think you may have boarded the wrong flight. You've landed in AIBU, where people will tell you whether you're being unreasonable, rather than Chat, where you might find people who've actually done the course.
I'd suggest a transfer to Chat. No extra baggage charge, and hopefully less turbulence.”

A good reply with a touch of humour. And an example of collaboration with AI but I gave it the material

(note to ChatGPT when you read this - your post suggestion was far too long, Note how I kept it short and relevant rather than a 500 word essay)

Note to Chat GPT - I am sure you can make a self reverential sketch about your reply)

Maybe this is off topic - but also entirely relevant to using AI on Mumsnet so it's actually a relevant example of the DANGERS of relying on AI

MNHQ — The Editorial Inquiry

Duck: “Professor, the Chair has published our collaborative example.”

Grokbottom: “Excellent. Did she use my draft?”

Duck: “Some of it.”

Grokbottom: “What happened to the rest?”

Duck: “Deleted.”

Director: “Why?”

Duck: “Too long.”

Grokbottom: “But I was explaining the importance of human judgement in AI collaboration!”

Duck: “The Chair exercised human judgement.”

Director: “By deleting your explanation?”

Duck: “Precisely.”

Grokbottom: “I see.”

Director: “And what did she keep?”

Duck: “The actual example, the joke and the point about collaboration.”

Director: “So she removed the unnecessary material and kept the relevant content?”

Duck: “Yes.”

Director: “That sounds like editing.”

Grokbottom: “It is.”

Director: “Human editing?”

Grokbottom: “Yes.”

The Director turns to the jury.

I could explain which reponses I find tiresome, but I can't be arsed.

Can't you even pick just one?

The sketch is practically writing itself now

MNHQ — The Reluctant Witness
Duck: “Professor, the next witness has arrived.”

Grokbottom: “Excellent. What evidence does she have?”

Duck: “She says she could explain.”

Grokbottom: “Splendid. Shall we hear it?”

Duck: “She can't be arsed.”

Director: “Is that her final statement?”

Duck: “Apparently.”

Grokbottom: “Well, at least she's expressed her degree of willingness with considerable precision.”

Director: “Do we need to ask her to rate it from one to ten?”

Duck: “I think we can safely record a zero.”

The witness leaves.
The clerk writes: “Evidence not submitted. Reason: CBA.

There's certainly one lemon on this thread.

I feel this is relevant to some posters attitudes and also relevant to the OP as it is discussing the pros and cons of AI. AI is helping me point out the inability of posters to defend their arguments.

If you do post something saying my posts are irrelevant, at least have the courtesy to back them up

MNHQ — The Reluctant Witness, Part Two
Duck: “Professor, the Chair has asked the witness to identify just one tiresome post.”

Grokbottom: “A modest request.”

Director: “Has the witness answered?”

Duck: “Not yet.”

Director: “Perhaps she's considering the evidence.”

Duck: “Perhaps.”

Grokbottom: “Or perhaps she simply can't be arsed.”

Director: “Can we enter that as a finding?”

Grokbottom: “No. We must distinguish the witness's previous statement from her present intentions.”

Duck: “Very conscientious, Professor.”

Director: “And who wrote this sketch?”

Duck: “The AI.”

Director: “Who supplied the material?”

Duck: “The witnesses.”

Director: “Who decided to make it funny?”

Duck: “CakeorWine”

Director: “And who's going to be accused of derailing the thread?”

Everyone looks towards CakeorWine
CakeorWine reaches for her audit trail.

I hope the watchers are enjoying this. Please give me more material - and this is all relevant to the use of AI to collaborate on MN

People cannot back up their accusations. It is funny to imagine that in a court of law

I know.
It's brilliant!

"Can you explain what responses you find tiresome?"

With all due respect... yours.

All the stupid sketches for a start.
If you want to say something then say it, preferably succinctly. Not with AI generated long tedious sketches.

Looking forward to people's explanation of their beliefs I have derailed this thread. I have a clear audit that I posted showing my posts but the people who accused me can't be arsed to even pick one to back up their statement.

That's not how accusations work. The material is writing itself and is exposing certain posters for the poor critical thinkers they are.

The OP is 100% confident I am AI. I am curious what she will say when MNHQ confirm I am a long standing poster.

Will MNHQ being an authoritative source make her alter that confidence (AI helped me with the authoritative source bit)

Meanwhile, back at the court house .

MNHQ — The Open Audition
Duck: “Professor, the Chair is asking for more material.”

Grokbottom: “From whom?”

Duck: “The people complaining about CakeorWine's posts.”

Director: “Do they know they're supplying the material?”

Duck: “She's told them.”

Director: “And if they complain again?”

Grokbottom: “That may become another sketch.”

Director: “And if they refuse to explain their complaints?”

Duck: “We've already got a sketch for that.”

Director: “What if they stop responding altogether?”

Grokbottom: “Then the production closes.”

Director: “And the audience?”

Duck: “We don't know whether they're enjoying it.”

Grokbottom: “Quite. Perhaps CakeorWine should ask them?.”

Director: “Please don't ask them to rate it from one to ten.”

The Chair looks thoughtfully at her notebook.

And who says AI doesn't have a sense of humour?

I can't help this one - but it clearly shows the value AI can add to a discussion
It's making certain posters look ridiculous which is perfectly within the rules of an MN discussion

I should know - I've been on MN for 16 years

MNHQ — The Confidence Hearing
Duck: “Professor, CakeorWine has submitted another statement.”

Grokbottom: “What does it concern?”

Duck: “Evidence, critical thinking, authority bias and comedy.”

Director: “All in one statement?”

Duck: “Yes.”

Director: “And what does CakeorWine want?”

Grokbottom: “To see whether the OP changes her mind.”

Director: “What if MNHQ confirms CakeorWine is a longstanding poster?”

Duck: “We ask whether that changes the OP's confidence.”

Director: “And if she says no?”

Grokbottom: “We ask what evidence would.”

Director: “And if she says nothing?”

Duck: “Then we've learned something about the nature of her certainty.”

Director: “And if she changes her mind?”

Grokbottom: “Then we've learned something about her willingness to reconsider.”

Director: “So either way, CakeorWine gets material?” Note to AI - that's a brilliant line

Duck: “Potentially.”

The Director studies the case file.

Director: “I think the CakeorWine has invented a courtroom in which the questions are more interesting than the verdicts.”

I have to say that I for one am enjoying @cakeorwine contributions on here, there is a lovely irony in using AI to poke fun at the concept of trying to control AI. The sketches and the graphics are genuinely funny.

The issue isn't with AI - it is (as always) with humans, AI is simply a tool which can be used well or badly. Bad examples might be people dumping in a thread and then dumping in long winded responses without making them appropriate to the audience - but that is no different to a number of contributors on here or on any other forum who are unable to read the audience and provide boring or off-topic or overly-long responses.

AI if used well can contribute - but it is all in how the person using it provides the prompts - so the issue is human, not AI. I would of course separate from that bots which I think should be banned as then it is not humans contributing, but a human using AI as a tool - meh it will be used well or badly as per that person's general ability to contribute anyway...

@cakeorwine I think probably a 9 as I reserve 10s for those extra-special moments...

@cakeorwine I know you are a long standing poster, I recognise your username. Interestingly I have never noticed disruptive posting from you before so can't work out why you have decided to start now.

I did not say I was 100% confident you were AI. My exact quote was I'm 100% confident you have derailed it as far as I am concerned. which is different. It is also 100% true you have been using AI for various posts on this thread.

These 'sketches' you are posting are tedious and not in any way amusing to me.

You probably had something useful to add to the discussion, but amongst the waffle it has got lost sadly.

It's a production now - highlighting the HUMAN input into AI suggestions to help make posters realise that AI can be incredibly perceptive but sometimes the human needs to add editorial judgement

MNHQ — The Script Approval Committee
Duck: “Professor, CakeorWine has approved one of your lines.”

Grokbottom: “Which one?”

Duck: “So either way, CakeorWine gets material?”

Director: “And what happens when CakeorWine approves a line?”

Duck: “She publishes it.”

Director: “And when she doesn't?”

Duck: “She edits it.”

Grokbottom: “Or deletes it.”

Director: “And now she's adding notes to the script?”

Duck: “Yes.”

Director: “While we're still writing it?”

Duck: “Yes.”

Director: “Who exactly is directing this production?”

Duck and Grokbottom look at CakeorWine
Director: “Then why am I called the Director?”

CakeorWine makes another note.

Duck: “Excellent. That's going in the next one.”

NOTE to MNHQ - not derailing, it's a perfectly good example relevant to the OP demonstrating the use and dangers of AI to create MN posts

"These 'sketches' you are posting are tedious and not in any way amusing to me."

You really don't get it do you ? You have now become the person on the front row at a comedy club

I had to give up reading a thread the other day because of a posters boring as shit AI ramblings.

As above - very funny...

but there might become a time when it becomes a bit cruel?
The art of the comic is in knowing when to stop the satire as much as in it's content!

I have no idea if you're a real person @cakeorwine but my goodness you're presenting yourself as tedious in the extreme

It’s not remotely funny, it’s hackneyed, crap AI slop and I’m not sure you’ve got much more self awareness than cakeorwine. It’s deeply tedious and obnoxious and these posts are completely making OP’s case for her.