Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I would agree and it raises the question where is the ’line’?
Take for example a person who aspires to the greatest standards of English grammar and uses a spell checker and grammar checker before posting. Their input has some machine learning. The non native speaker uses an advanced translation tool before posting, and today these tools use a lot of machine learning to improve their output, to try and capture not simply a one to one substitution of equivalent words but to convey the message as best intended. And next up I want help making my argument and ask ChatGPT to help compose it for me. Well, where exactly does the human end and the AI begin…
I don't understand why people want to post comments on topics that they don't know much about. We don't get some fancy status for passing posting thresholds.
On other forums I have seen dangerous AI generated postings, AI seems to be bad at interpreting safety standards.
On other forums I have seen dangerous AI generated postings, AI seems to be bad at interpreting safety standards.
Maybe in the future it will be difficult to come to know which communication is authentic.
We are no control fetishists and no police.
But it would be a statement if we communicate honestly that ai generated content is not tolerated.
If someone uses translation that should not be a problem.
However we know that the web in general is flooded with bots which get better and better.
And it was clear or is clear that also the web lost or will lose its freedom of speech.
Printing books were controlled, newspapers are controlled.
The web will be controlled.
We are no control fetishists and no police.
But it would be a statement if we communicate honestly that ai generated content is not tolerated.
If someone uses translation that should not be a problem.
However we know that the web in general is flooded with bots which get better and better.
And it was clear or is clear that also the web lost or will lose its freedom of speech.
Printing books were controlled, newspapers are controlled.
The web will be controlled.
Wherever there's a way to get through a little more easily, i.e. without having to actually read the assignment. I dont blame chatGPT per se - from Wikipedia:
"CliffsNotes was started by Nebraska native Clifton Hillegass in 1958.[2] He was working at Nebraska Book Company of Lincoln, Nebraska, when he met Jack Cole, the co-owner of Coles, a Toronto book business. Coles published a series of Canadian study guides called Coles Notes, and sold Hillegass the U.S. rights to the guides.
Hillegass and his wife, Catherine, started the business in their basement at 511 Eastridge Drive in Lincoln, with sixteen William Shakespeare titles. By 1964, sales reached one million Notes annually. CliffsNotes now exist for hundreds of works. The term "Cliff's Notes" has become a proprietary eponym for similar products.
IDG Books purchased CliffsNotes in 1998 for $14.2 million"
That schools tolerate use of ai is a drawback for the educational level masking the authentic progress.
Seems that it is not intended to control the abuse.
Seems that it is not intended to control the abuse.
The Virginia Satir poem. Negative attention is better than no attention. If one can craft something using available means to get it...
Before we bogged down in the rights and wrongs of ai generated content, can someone explain how you can reliably discriminate between AI and human content.
Particularly if the ai generated content has been edited before posting to remove the ai look and feel.
Because I don't see it can be done in a reliable fashion and it's only going to get harder to make the distinction.
Particularly if the ai generated content has been edited before posting to remove the ai look and feel.
Because I don't see it can be done in a reliable fashion and it's only going to get harder to make the distinction.
Its pretty easy to make current AIs stumble if you ask them to cite papers on a very technical subject, including doi numbers. Wrong doi numbers and or nonexistent papers may be cited.
In that case you have passed the content through your mental system and it becomes your content. AI will then be just another source like newspapers, encyclopediae, web searches etc.
Off topic: when I was at secondary school and had to read dozens of literary novels for school, almost everyone used books with summaries instead of the real thing. I still regret that I didn't do that. Reading all those utterly uninteresting books cost me an enormous amount of time, put me off reading novels for decades (I'm in my mid-fifties now and seem to be gradually getting over it the last couple of years) and didn't even result in a good grade.
But quoting Wikipedia or other sites is also frowned on if you don't own up...
Using ai generated content is no different to that. You have to own up or it's plagiarism...
"own up"?
For me it is simple - if I write about something that is not part of my knowledge and explained in e.g. Nelson Pass book or Wikipedia then I mention it.
If I paste direct text then I add a link to the source.
If I write about something that I have learned during the years from Nelson Pass book or Wikipedia and it has become a part of my understanding of things then I pass it as my own opinion without quoting.
Quite likely, I'd assume. You can count on the AI algorithm checking subsequent responses, adding to its arsenal what worked in a perhaps far more sophisticated way than a simple "rage bait" entry.
A friend once told me of a PhD in psychology professor who was also a "Big Time" Wrestler on TV. Claimed his character, who was deliberately designed to be someone everyone would likely hate, provided "mass therapy" to thousands via the TV channel.
Perhaps that's the purpose of the AI "bots", to keep people participating on line by giving them something to do and generate engagement. It's mass therapy. What a sweet reply to my post! I feel so much better.
The only way out is to not participate, or cut all communication to non-verified human participants. I wonder how that verification process would work and what one would have to surrender, in order to gain the credential. Hoe easily that check could be cheated. Ugh.
Generally speaking I'm a very optimistic guy (I'm not joking at all).
However,
in 1950 the world population was 2.5 billion people.
Annual CO2 emissions were 6 billion tons.
Today the world population on Earth has more than tripled.
Today, CO2 emissions into the atmosphere have increased more than sixfold.
If everything seems easier for some parts of the world's population then everything is more difficult for other parts of the world's population.
It seems that through AI is planning to drastically reduce the number of work places in regions of the world where everything seemed easier.
If now I declare that I'm in favor of the use of AI in general, that I'm in favor of the use of AI on the Forum and that AI will save the world regardless of which region one lives in, what would you think?
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
https://decarbonization.visualcapitalist.com/global-co2-emissions-through-time-1950-2022/
However,
in 1950 the world population was 2.5 billion people.
Annual CO2 emissions were 6 billion tons.
Today the world population on Earth has more than tripled.
Today, CO2 emissions into the atmosphere have increased more than sixfold.
If everything seems easier for some parts of the world's population then everything is more difficult for other parts of the world's population.
It seems that through AI is planning to drastically reduce the number of work places in regions of the world where everything seemed easier.
If now I declare that I'm in favor of the use of AI in general, that I'm in favor of the use of AI on the Forum and that AI will save the world regardless of which region one lives in, what would you think?
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
https://decarbonization.visualcapitalist.com/global-co2-emissions-through-time-1950-2022/
May be, but I think that we're not (only) talking about you here.
Someone already talked about parrots, others talked about ethics, rules, self-declarations, but we should also rely on the intellectual honesty and correctness of people.
But will they all be loyal?
In Medicine, those who practice the profession of Doctor take the Hippocratic Oath and undertake to observe the code of ethical behavior (I believe this also applies to lawyers).
Not all doctors are the same, though (and neither all lawyers, I believe).
To be loyal. They probably have to be intelligent, and they're not that. We are still a long way from a general intelligence or even something like HAL.
There is a lot of confusion and hype...
Its simply important to make a statement against "ai".
It should be seen on every page we have in the diy audio forum.
The "ai" presented to us will always be influenced by people who want to steer what we think.
It should be seen on every page we have in the diy audio forum.
The "ai" presented to us will always be influenced by people who want to steer what we think.
What exactly makes you post a statement like this?
Could you elaborate what causes you aggravation?