Why the major objectives of the forum communication and interactions, is to bring up your ideas by yourself...now, people are using Al as a tools of making ambiguous sentences and good spelling...

I agree.

I would also say it doesn’t matter if it’s partly AI. It matters if it’s 100% AI and if it’s considered slop or not.

That’s why I suggested a solution to target habitual shit posters and spammers: a newly created group of moderators which would review accounts that get reported by the community. The community would make reports on spammer accounts, and those reports would alert the newly deployed moderators. Those mods would work almost as a team because they would have to contribute a vote whether or not to warn, mute, temp ban, or permanently ban candidates. These mods would have limited power: only 1 vote to cast. A majority vote would decide a result. Their job would essentially be to review the past 50 posts of said account and cast a vote. The system focuses on the source of the problem and balances fairness by providing a diverse group of mods to eliminate biases.

The moderator position is paid. Who will pay the new moderators who, in your opinion, will be responsible for this job? What's wrong with the current moderators, who are doing a great job and have already learned to distinguish the "wheat from the chaff"?

Have you thought about the abuse potential of this? Who controls that AI-slop marker points, I'm not willing to call it "merit", are given in a justified manner? Think of competitors who didn't make it into a campaign may start to bully some that are in a campaign.

I'd rather prefer an AI policy in this forum where AI generated or even aided content should be clearly labeled and quoted as such.

What Cricktor is talking about is that anyone that use AI for a content should clearly state that he used AI. Theymos had talked about this on this thread which should be the proper way of using AI. If not done, such a user supposed to be banned but the punishment against it will be mild according to what was discussed which can be a warning or temporary ban.

I'm very optimistic about AI on the whole, but its overuse here on the forum risks worsening the signal-to-noise ratio. You're never supposed to be posting "slop" of any kind, whether AI-generated or not. If moderators look at someone's posts and think, "This person is just posting garbage to inflate their post count," then that person should be banned, regardless of the source of the garbage *. But AI makes it much easier and more tempting to post a bunch of slop: at first glance the posts seem high-quality and on-topic, but after reading a few of them they quickly become slop due to their unoriginality, excessive verbosity, and boring samey style. Also, I'm concerned that putting too much unmarked AI-generated text on the forum might confuse AIs which try to train on forum posts, which is undesirable in my book because it makes AI worse/incomplete and it prevents our little corner of humanity from being reflected within AIs. (That's why we don't block or paywall AIs trying to crawl the forum.) Therefore, the main guideline forum users should follow is:

You should not copy/paste text written by an AI into a post, with these exceptions:
 - If you clearly mention that something you're posting is AI-generated, and you only occasionally and appropriately post such AI-generated text, then that's OK.
 - If you have the AI do almost a direct translation of something you wrote, then that's OK. For example, you can tell the AI to "Directly translate this text into Spanish: <something you wrote>" or "Output the following text exactly as-is, except with any clear spelling or grammar mistakes fixed: <something you wrote>". It's not OK to tell an AI, "Improve this text: <something you wrote>", since then it will mostly rewrite it, and it risks becoming AI slop in the process.
 - Non-text AI content such as art is OK (subject to the normal rules).

You can use AI to suggest grammar/style improvements, or to give you ideas, with you manually implementing those suggestions; but avoid directly copying more than a few words from the AI. However, I recommend against ever relying on AI writing advice very much, since mixed in with its good suggestions it'll usually also give bad suggestions which will just erase all personality from your writing. Better your writing be flawed and authentically-you than "correct" but stripped of any soul.

---

* I acknowledge that not nearly enough people are banned for low-quality posts. The fundamental issue is that we don't want to ban someone just for posting one or two stupid posts, since that's subjective and might just be due to the person having weird opinions or being a poor writer. So to evaluate a user properly, we really want to be reading a sampling of 20-40 of their posts. But doing this sort of evaluation (i.e. reading through hundreds of mediocre-to-bad posts) is really soul-sucking, so nobody wants to do it very much. I'm still thinking about ways to resolve this issue, possibly involving rejiggering how merit works.

Is your AI malfunctioning, what's the reason for the "BTC" in that sentence?

I would say your question is off-topic to this thread, especially your complaints about not enough enforcement of some rules to your liking. At least you managed to sneak in some words about AI in the end, so that it's likely not worth it to report your wall of text as off-topic.

Get a life, crybaby!


Feel free to report my post, if that gives you some satisfaction. I won't be hurt, I can move on.

This Thread should be pinned in META and also everywhere !

Unless i misunderstood the normal rule, there's no requirement to mention source of non-text content. So i suggest this part of guideline should be updated, to also mention/disclose that the non-text content is AI generated.

User @AnisEverRise created thread Solo Mining with Solar: My QSE Experiment with a Bitaxe Stack.. supposedly about his project, which include an image. Based on the thread text and image, there's implication it's real life photo taken by himself. But some people suspect it's AI generated, which later confirmed by himself.

Unless i misunderstood the normal rule, there's no requirement to mention source of non-text content. So i suggest this part of guideline should be updated, to also mention/disclose that the non-text content is AI generated.