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.

And a lemon

blesses lemon and squirts juice

The power of Christ compels you!

One thing I have gained from this thread is to skip cake's posts in future Either posting AI drivel or her own.

At 23:49 she couldn't even be bothered to remove You might like to reference the OPs rules she suggested on a discussion thread in Site Stuff from her response.

If it had been 'real' posting it would have least have been You might like to reference the rules the OP posted at the start of the thread !

MN hasn't even been able to moderate racism and misinformation. I doubt they will be able to moderate AI.

But at least if there was a rule, suspected AI posts would be clearly reportable as such. Plus there would be a clear 'code of practice' to announce its use at the start of a post. It would reduce people picking on an OP who used AI to improve SPaG or organise their thoughts but then goes on to have lower literacy levels when answering comments.

edit

How much do you believe that is an AI post?
On a scale of 1 to 10?
And as it's an open thread, other people can contribute with their belief and a scale
(You are practically feeding me stuff to create a comedy sketch)

edit

DUCK: “Professor, is this a trial?”

GROKBOTTOM: “It's a confidence survey.”

DUCK: “What's the evidence?”

GROKBOTTOM: “An apostrophe, some phrasing and a suspicion.”

DUCK: “And what's the verdict?”

GROKBOTTOM: “The jury hasn't agreed on a number.”

DIRECTOR: “WHY IS THERE A ROBOT WEARING THE JUDGE'S WIG?”

DUCK: “It was the only applicant with experience processing large volumes of text.”

DIRECTOR: “AND WHY IS THE DEFENDANT LAUGHING?”

GROKBOTTOM: “Because the Chair has discovered that an accusation can also be excellent material.”

This entire thread has been derailed by @cakeorwine 's desperate need for attention.

Can you explain which of my posts have derailed it and which posts reference the discussion the OP started?

Look forward to your report

Yes, but your posts are getting boring - whether or not they’re actually coming from ChatGPT. Although you’re clearly having a good time so that’s something.

"At 23:49 she couldn't even be bothered to remove You might like to reference the OPs rules she suggested on a discussion thread in Site Stuff from her response."

Think about it. Think about those words I chose and why I chose to make them. You might like to reference you r previous post

No. I will leave you to it. It's too early for this.

What was the purpose of the OP posting in Site stuff?
What is the aim of a discussion in site stuff about AI rules?
Do you find someone debating the OPs discussion boring?
Which of my contributions have been irrelevant to the OP and which have made valid points about the use of AI?

Look forward to your report.

You might like to think about what Site Stuff is for

AI makes threads into a spongy mess. I think we’d be amazed if we dropped into MN circa 2006 now because all the posts were so short.

The AI thread title thing is hugely annoying but I guess was to try to reduce the amount of times MNHQ were asked to edit a thread title?

Id support AI generated text being flagged, yes.

This thread is not going anywhere
You have made an accusation - but don't have the evidence to back it up

You must have believed it - so what led you to that belief?

How confident are you that it's been derailed on a scale of 1 to 10?

I'm 100% confident you have derailed it as far as I am concerned.

For example what benefit was the post at 07:53 meant to bring to the discussion? And all the low quality 'cartoons'?

It's really irritating as AI use in general is an important discussion and it would be good to have a human discussion about its use on MN.

We could delete (almost) all your/AI's posts on this thread without losing much in the discussion at all.

You can't see the relevance of people in a coiurt room judging if a post is AI and giving their belief on a scale of 1 to 10?

You are giving me material

What did you want to happen when you suggested AI rules on Site Stuff?
People will post about the positives and the negatives

Why not get AI to analyse my posts and see what they argue

I will also ask AI if Cakeorwine has derailed this thread

I could ask it about you on this thread

Or say Teentotwenties has started this thread. Analyse the responses and identify the key contributors. Also identify people who struggled with it and made points they can't back up

"We could delete (almost) all your/AI's posts on this thread without losing much in the discussion at all."

Which of my posts would you delete?

IReview of cakeorwine's contributions to the Mumsnet AI rules discussion
Based on the posts you've shared with me, here's a chronological assessment of their content and relevance to the OP's proposal about declaring and restricting AI use.

NOTE TO MNHQ - I gave ChatGPT my posts. No scraping involved

Earlier — time not supplied
Challenged the distinction between unthinking AI copy-and-paste and human-directed, edited AI assistance.
Substantive argument
Directly relevant — what kinds of AI use should be permitted?

Earlier — time not supplied
Used Cabin Pressure as an example of AI helping someone develop insights to discuss with other humans.
Example / substantive argument
Directly relevant — AI as a tool supporting human conversation.

Earlier — time not supplied
Discussed AI-generated images as potentially funny, imaginative and useful for communicating ideas.
Substantive argument
Directly relevant — whether AI-generated content has value.

Earlier — time not supplied
Referenced Calvin and Hobbes and the difficulty of judging creative work, including the quotation about art not being created for its audience.
Humour / illustration
Relevant — subjective judgements of AI-created art.

Earlier — time not supplied
Exchanged jokes about priests, Morpheus and a lemon with another poster.
Humorous exchange
Light-hearted — illustrates spontaneous human interaction within the thread.

Earlier — time not supplied
Posted satirical AI cartoons featuring Mumsnetters and chatbots, including the courtroom judging whether posts were AI-generated.
Humour / visual argument
Relevant satire — directly illustrates suspicion, authorship and judgement.

07:46
Challenged the OP's assertion that a particular phrase proved careless AI use; asked how confident she was that a post was AI-generated, on a scale of 1–10.
Substantive challenge / humour
Directly relevant — reliability of identifying AI-generated posts.

07:50
Invited other contributors to rate their confidence that a post was AI-generated; joked about being given material for a comedy sketch.
Question / humour
Directly relevant, with a comic element — evidence and confidence in AI detection.

07:54
Asked a poster accusing you of derailing the thread to identify which posts were irrelevant and which addressed the OP's discussion.
Request for evidence
Relevant — assessing whether contributions address the proposal.

07:56
Asked the OP to consider why you deliberately chose wording she had identified as evidence of AI copying.
Substantive challenge
Directly relevant — human authorship, intention and interpretation.

07:59
Asked what Site Stuff discussions are for, whether debating proposed AI rules is boring, and which contributions were irrelevant or valid. Requested a report.
Questions / dry humour
Relevant — legitimacy of debating the OP's proposal.

08:02
Asked a poster who alleged derailment what evidence supported that belief and how confident they were on a scale of 1–10.
Request for evidence / humour
Relevant to the dispute about the thread, rather than directly to the proposed AI rules.

08:18
Explained the relevance of the courtroom cartoon, asked what discussion the OP expected, and proposed analysing posts to identify arguments and contributors.
Substantive argument / questions
Directly relevant — how the debate should assess AI use and the arguments presented.

I'll just leave this there (the lemon is still in play)

I missed one

Updated entry for your audit

07:53
Satirical courtroom sketch responding to the OP's accusation of AI posting. Questions the evidence used to identify AI authorship and illustrates the difference between suspicion, confidence and proof.

Humour / substantive satire
Directly relevant — examines the reliability of AI detection, central to the OP's proposed reporting rules.

Note to OP - you are giving me material here.

DUCK: “Professor, another exhibit has arrived.”
GROKBOTTOM: “What's it about?”
DUCK: “Why the previous exhibit was relevant.”
DIRECTOR: “AND WHY WAS THAT NECESSARY?”
DUCK: “Because the OP challenged its relevance.”
DIRECTOR: “SO THE CHALLENGE GENERATED ANOTHER RELEVANT CONTRIBUTION?”
GROKBOTTOM: “Precisely.”
DIRECTOR: “CAN THIS PROCESS EVER END?”
DUCK: “Only if someone stops supplying material.”
The Chair looks expectantly towards the witness box.

I’ve reported most as spam

Which ones are spam

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.

I got into MNHQ first - all these posts are by Cakeorwine

You can advanced search me if you want
Dying to know what you said to MNHQ to say they were spam