Koolau
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I especially hate in on YouTube for "biography."AI content is glaringly obvious.
I especially hate in on YouTube for "biography."AI content is glaringly obvious.
I am all for this, and I personally never copy/paste large chunks of AI-generated text verbatim into any of my posts. But I wonder how enforceable this policy will be given the large (and ever expanding) number of AI chatbots out there. There are currently dozens of them, with more coming online every month. Will some sort of "AI detection" tool be used to scan posts, or will the mod team rely on good, old-fashioned HI (human intelligence)?A copy/paste of AI-content is not going to be an acceptable post/thread going forward.
I'm sure the intent is good, but AI is just the latest tool. How do you know that a response is not copy/pasted? I got suspicious at a particular post on this very forum a while back, before AI was widely available, and when I googled an excerpt, it came up verbatim on another (non-AI) site, with the rest of the text as well. Clearly a copy/paste. Yet, the poster wrote it as if it were their own words.Well so far posters have identified their AI source. If they post without identifying? Well I guess it’s like any other source copied and pasted without attribution. Fortunately doesn’t happen here much.
I was part of the problem. ChatGPT is a new toy to me and I am amazed at the detailed (not always perfect) responses that are provided in a matter of seconds. I posted what I thought would be some entertaining and perhaps thought provoking threads on what the power of AI could do. I was just trying to share how out of the box AI responses could get. A few people liked them but they were lengthy and annoying for some. I now get that most peeps here have a different view on what they want to read on this website. I think the original post here is a fair request.This new policy seems like a solution in search of a problem to me. Sorry.
We can always revisit the policy in the future if that seems wise at the time.I was part of the problem. ChatGPT is a new toy to me and I am amazed at the detailed (not always perfect) responses that are provided in a matter of seconds. I posted what I thought would be some entertaining and perhaps thought provoking threads on what the power of AI could do. I was just trying to share how out of the box AI responses could get. A few people liked them but they were lengthy and annoying for some. I now get that most peeps here have a different view on what they want to read on this website. I think the original post here is a fair request.
"We are here to hear from each other, from their experiences, struggles and successes. In that spirit, we are asking members to use discretion and limit use of AI-content posts: If you'd like to include a (very) brief summary of some AI response, in your own words, as a part of your post on occasion, that would be acceptable, but it should never be the majority of what YOU have to say."
Exactly.To me, the problem with AI is the length. When you have to compose and type every word, you keep it short and to the point. AI tends to be verbose. I also dislike long cut/paste stuff - again, because of the length. If the poster has already read it - just give me the gist of it.
You're actually part of the solution. Your post was a little long. We just continue along, finding our way between the lines!I was part of the problem. ChatGPT is a new toy to me and I am amazed at the detailed (not always perfect) responses that are provided in a matter of seconds. I posted what I thought would be some entertaining and perhaps thought provoking threads on what the power of AI could do. I was just trying to share how out of the box AI responses could get. A few people liked them but they were lengthy and annoying for some. I now get that most peeps here have a different view on what they want to read on this website. I think the original post here is a fair request.
This is just my opinion as a non-moderator, but I don't think your thread about a trip to mars was the problem. It says right in the title that it's about ChatGPT and if you want to talk to ChatGPT and then share that conversation in a thread that's properly labeled and located in the Tech forum, I don't care. I skimmed through it once and found it amusing.I was part of the problem. ChatGPT is a new toy to me and I am amazed at the detailed (not always perfect) responses that are provided in a matter of seconds. I posted what I thought would be some entertaining and perhaps thought provoking threads on what the power of AI could do. I was just trying to share how out of the box AI responses could get. A few people liked them but they were lengthy and annoying for some. I now get that most peeps here have a different view on what they want to read on this website. I think the original post here is a fair request.
This seems an opportune time to remind people about the cut and paste and attribution rules, which are here: Copyright, the DMCA, and "cut and paste"I'm sure the intent is good, but AI is just the latest tool. How do you know that a response is not copy/pasted? I got suspicious at a particular post on this very forum a while back, before AI was widely available, and when I googled an excerpt, it came up verbatim on another (non-AI) site, with the rest of the text as well. Clearly a copy/paste. Yet, the poster wrote it as if it were their own words.
I don't see why anyone should care if something is copy/pasted from AI, or from another site - but it should be credited as such. And something personally written can be just as wrong as anything from AI. Due diligence is required regardless.
...
I have no idea why I find discussing the poor quality of AI output to be more annoying than discussing the poor quality of blog posts or articles written by humans. Those writers aren't participating in the conversation either. Probably I am just feeling curmudgeonly lately.
Apple is suspending an artificial intelligence feature that made inaccurate summaries of news headlines.
The tech company received a complaint from the BBC after the AI-generated service issued a news alert branded with the corporation’s logo falsely telling some iPhone users that Luigi Mangione, who is accused of killing the UnitedHealthcare chief executive, Brian Thompson, had shot himself.
Other false notices that carried the BBC logo included one claiming Luke Littler had won the PDC World Darts final before playing in it and another that the tennis player Rafael Nadal had “come out” as gay.
They're simply choosing a different fix. According the article, "Apple is working on a version that will warn iPhone users of potential errors and will use italicised text."Even more annoying is when trusted sources such as Apple don’t check the quality of their AI searches before sending it out.
Wow, those are some crazy glaring errors and look suspiciously like clickbait. Did someone game the AI?Even more annoying is when trusted sources such as Apple don’t check the quality of their AI searches before sending it out.
I have no idea. Initially they said they were going to update the feature (see link below) but now they are going to suspend it while they investigate. The BBC is not the only news outlet being misquoted.Wow, those are some crazy glaring errors and look suspiciously like clickbait. Did someone game the AI?
In November, a ProPublica journalist flagged an inaccurate Apple AI summary of alerts from the New York Times that wrongly claimed that Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been arrested.
As someone who is guilty of posting long-winded replies, I resemble this remark.Yeah, it's really distracting to post long excerpts from any source.
I believe you may have the coveted soft pass on long posts SPOLP.As someone who is guilty of posting long-winded replies, I resemble this remark.![]()
No relation.Who this new guy Al? I remember Trombone Al, but not this new guy!![]()