Will now all posts be deleted which were created with the help of AI? Is this a new rule?

[noname223]

Is this a new rule or is it an old rule that gets now implemented?

I got the Notification that a political thread of mine Was deleted due to "AI content". It was called "The US is becoming a monarchy ran by a CEO dictator, the media keeps silent and the resistance is crumbling".
I cannot say for sure whether I created it with AI. But I believe the staff when they say so. There are many threads in this forum where the poster admits of having used AI.

If it is a new rule I will fully abide it. But I wonder if this a retroactive action. Were you aware AI content is not allowed in threads? I can understand this rule. But some genuinely interesting threads will be now deleted.

I hope it is okay to openly talk about this here.

 

[colour]

I have no idea if it's a rule, but what's the point of using AI to talk for you on a forum dedicated to issues you can't talk about freely elsewhere?

 

[Namelesa]

I say they shouldn't remove any previous AI content made threads especially if they said that it was AI. Tho they need to add this to the rules if they want to actual warn/ban people of making this kind of content in the future.

How do you not know for certain whether your thread had AI content in it or not?

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

How do you not know for certain whether your thread had AI content in it or not?

They absolutely do know. This is bullshit.

As for AI on this site, I just reported an AI post full of dangerous misinformation in the Recovery section some time ago. AI was filling my notifications. There is a difference between "getting help" from AI and copy-pasting it directly without checking sources.

 

[Namelesa]

They absolutely do know. This is bullshit.

As for AI on this site, I just reported an AI post full of dangerous misinformation in the Recovery section some time ago. AI was filling my notifications. There is a difference between "getting help" from AI and copy-pasting it directly without checkig sources.

okay yea definitely pure AI content shouldn't be allowed at all but previous content that was supported by AI or the person delved into and analysed the content shouldn't be removed in my opinion.

 

[WhiteRabbit]

Are people using AI to write their forum posts now? God, the future is grim.

 

[Whale_bones]

There is a difference between "getting help" from AI and copy-pasting it directly without checking sources.

Exactly this. AI can be used as a tool for those with writing difficulties, those who speak other languages, etc. It can be genuinely helpful in those cases. It turns to unhelpful and sometimes dangerous (not to mention inauthentic) if people have AI write most or all of their post, don't fact-check and present it as their own thoughts/opinions.

I cannot say for sure whether I created it with AI. But I believe the staff when they say so.

This statement makes no sense. You can't say for sure if you wrote your own post or not?

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I cannot say for sure whether I created it with AI.

What do you mean? You would know if your post was AI-generated or because you would have used AI to generate it

 

[TheHolySword]

When people are using AI as a source of information on methods then it becomes dangerous.

 

[WhiteRabbit]

It seems that you are frustrated about forum posters automatically generating posts with the help of AI language models. I understand your concerns, but I think it's important to take a step back and consider a few points that might reassure you:

• AI is a tool, not a replacement: While AI can assist in generating text, it's ultimately up to the users to decide how they use it. Many people still value genuine human interaction and creativity when participating in online forums.
• Personal connection remains key: AI-generated posts might be helpful for ideas or drafts, but authentic, thoughtful, and engaging responses from real people still stand out and get noticed. Human empathy and understanding can't be replicated by AI.
• Moderation will adapt: As AI becomes more integrated into the digital space, moderators and forum administrators will likely develop ways to identify AI-generated posts. This could lead to new guidelines that keep things fair and meaningful.
• Diversity in voices: AI can help people express themselves in ways they might not have been able to otherwise, whether it's due to language barriers, writer's block, or time constraints. This might actually lead to a broader range of voices in online discussions.
• It's still early days: We are in the early stages of AI development, and many systems like mine are still far from perfect. As AI continues to evolve, it's likely we'll see improvements in how it integrates into communities and how people use it.
• You still have control: At the end of the day, the forums will still be shaped by the users who choose to be active and engaged. AI might influence the landscape, but it's up to the community to uphold the values and tone that matter to them.

Hope this helps ease some of your concerns!

Fuck you and your god damn algorithms!!!!

 

[Pluto]

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

When people are using AI as a source of information on methods then it becomes dangerous.

And for ways to Recover too. The wrong Recovery method could drive someone to CTB.

 

[ForgottenAgain]

I wasn't aware of the rule but I'm happy about it. Tired of seeing text written by AI everywhere. If we can't be bothered to write our own thoughts then what will we be bothered with?
This is also an emotionally charged place, we shouldn't be posting nor responding to people pouring their hearts out with generated AI slop.

 

[astr4]

ai translations are valid and i certainly wouldn't fault someone who didn't have their full mental capacities for using ai, but if we are all adults capable of rational thought i hope we are all capable of expressing that in our own words.

i don't bother with grammar even if i am pedantic about spelling and i still feel i am understood perfectly fine. if language is the concern no one will judge you for it here, at least in my experience.

that being said i hate that people have started treating chatgpt like a credible source for suicide knowledge. asking chatgpt how much sn to take? or how long it'll take to freeze to death?

guys. look up a peer reviewed paper or something. draw your own conclusions. look up LD50s. stop trusting ai to give you the answers you are looking for. i know depression hinders the brain but please please if you can focus and put effort into one thing it should be getting out safely and intelligently.

 

[noname223]

What do you mean? You would know if your post was AI-generated or because you would have used AI to generate it

I post so many threads and it is a while ago since I posted that particular thread.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I don't know about the rules here. However, I've always thought it was good practice to make it clear when we are quoting something- and the source where possible. It's probably just a hangover I have from writing essays at uni. I would have thought it would be ok if the OP makes it clear they are using AI or, quoting someone else.

Probably an unpopular opinion now but I actually think copyright and intellectual property rights are important.

That raises issues all of their own when it comes to AI. Does AI make it clear where it is sourcing it's information from? It's a weird kind of age where so much information is at our fingertips but then, we can't be so sure that it is correct.

I think I'm too old for all this AI stuff. I'm not sure I'll ever use it in this context.

 

[rainwillneverstop]

This is obviously a new problem that has arose since the start of ai tools, but I've seen it more on the forum within the past few months or so.
As it's new, there hasn't been made a new rule (yet) regarding the use of AI, but for now certain AI posts has fallen under low effort content.
Just to clarify, nobody has been warned but posts have been removed and author notified.

In the instances, it has been very generic ai generated content which is not that hard to spot because they tend to format messages in a certain way and way of speech is also recognizable.

An example was somebody using it in the middle of arguing with somebody. At that point they were just arguing with an ai rather than the actual person, because they would just feed the reply and copy paste what the ai would respond to it.
I think most people would rather talk with a person here than an ai, especially unwillingly.

There's obviously gray areas to it as when somebody is using it as a genuine "assist," and it's something we will have to learn to navigate and differentiate.
But I agree with Astr4 that we should all be adults who are able to express ourselves on our own in some way.

 

[derpyderpins]

@Saturn_ lol was your post actually deleted by mods?

I think it's ridiculous to delete stuff that violates no rules because of how it was generated on a site full of neurodiverse people with a hard time expressing themselves.

Pretty much all of my longer theory posts used ai as an assistant at least a little. I'm not allowed to delete my own posts and wipe my account, but we're considering whether they can be deleted because of the tools I used. . . Lol.

Honestly though I tend to be against banning ai in every instance because I never see any, ANY, logical reasons for it. If a post is bad, it will fail. If art is not as good as a human's, it won't be popular. Complaints about "generic" posts and/or low effort content in this day and age are funny to me. If it's giving wrong information, call it out/correct it like you would a non ai post, considering people get shit wrong all the time. If it brakes an existing rule, it gets removed for breaking that rule.

Whether you enjoy the content personally should be a separate consideration from whether you want it banned, as with all content. If you have a logic based argument for banning use of the tool (which you can't be sure was used or not used anyway) that I'm missing please share.

I don't know about the rules here. However, I've always thought it was good practice to make it clear when we are quoting something- and the source where possible. It's probably just a hangover I have from writing essays at uni. I would have thought it would be ok if the OP makes it clear they are using AI or, quoting someone else.

Probably an unpopular opinion now but I actually think copyright and intellectual property rights are important.

That raises issues all of their own when it comes to AI. Does AI make it clear where it is sourcing it's information from? It's a weird kind of age where so much information is at our fingertips but then, we can't be so sure that it is correct.

I think I'm too old for all this AI stuff. I'm not sure I'll ever use it in this context.

The newer search and reasoning models are getting much better at linking their sources and quoting excerpts.

 

[TheGoodGuy]

I don´t get it, are people writing posts using AI? And how would that even work? like "Chatgbt how do I answer "this....." post"? If that is the case or are they telling chatgbt and other AI programs to write threads???

 

[ForgottenAgain]

@Saturn_ lol was your post actually deleted by mods?

I think it's ridiculous to delete stuff that violates no rules because of how it was generated on a site full of neurodiverse people with a hard time expressing themselves.

Pretty much all of my longer theory posts used ai as an assistant at least a little. I'm not allowed to delete my own posts and wipe my account, but we're considering whether they can be deleted because of the tools I used. . . Lol.

Honestly though I tend to be against banning ai in every instance because I never see any, ANY, logical reasons for it. If a post is bad, it will fail. If art is not as good as a human's, it won't be popular. Complaints about "generic" posts and/or low effort content in this day and age are funny to me. If it's giving wrong information, call it out/correct it like you would a non ai post, considering people get shit wrong all the time. If it brakes an existing rule, it gets removed for breaking that rule.

Whether you enjoy the content personally should be a separate consideration from whether you want it banned, as with all content. If you have a logic based argument for banning use of the tool (which you can't be sure was used or not used anyway) that I'm missing please share.


The newer search and reasoning models are getting much better at linking their sources and quoting excerpts.

The first logical reason to be against AI is the fact that all its data is stolen. The people who's work was and is used to feed AI was never credited, those people were never paid. It shouldn't be legal, in my opinion. Several companies are also pushing for that behind people's backs, like Behance putting a setting automatically toggled on that allows them to use any work you put in their platform for AI training. They don't disclose anything, they hope no one notices until it's too late.

It's not just a tool when it's using data that was not consented to be used and when all the people who produced their data aren't credited nor paid for its usage.

 

[derpyderpins]

The first logical reason to be against AI is the fact that all its data is stolen. The people who's work was and is used to feed AI was never credited, those people were never paid. It shouldn't be legal, in my opinion. Several companies are also pushing for that behind people's backs, like Behance putting a setting automatically toggled on that allows them to use any work you put in their platform for AI training. They don't disclose anything, they hope no one notices until it's too late.

It's not just a tool when it's using data that was not consented to be used and when all the people who produced their data aren't credited nor paid for its usage.

I steal "data" from every person I interact with to refine my own internal algorithms. I don't credit each of them with each new writing nor pay them, and I've never gotten payment either!

Artists steal from every previous artist that inspired them. They don't have to credit them all with each new release.

I guess I don't see how you can put product out into the world and not expect others to learn from it at all.

 

[Hvergelmir]

If a post is bad, it will fail.

AI is deceptive in the way it can confidently and with a very high level of expertise, present complete bogus information.
It has the potential of impersonating very knowledgeable and trustworthy experts, while serving someone's agenda.

Deceptive and insincere experts are dangerous. AI can enable that for anyone.

I'm refuting that the issue is trivial, or that it will solve itself.
I'm however very positive towards AI, and we'll need to face the upcoming threats regardless of local regulation.

I don´t get it, are people writing posts using AI? And how would that even work? like "Chatgbt how do I answer "this....." post"?

I use AI to review some of my answers before posting, especially if I'm saying something that I think might be misunderstood, or unintentionally offend someone.

I'd like to say X to someone who is strongly convinced of Y: "You are wrong. X is true because of reasons".
Is this clear and logically coherent?
AI would probably tell me to drop the 'you are wrong', and give some feedback on both the grammar and the arguments.

The first logical reason to be against AI is the fact that all its data is stolen.

How is that different from a traditional encyclopedia? Reading and processing information we observe from others have always been a major factor of innovation and progress.

AI gives the people knowledge that was traditionally gated behind years of studies. I don't think a stance for protecting intellectual property will benefit the masses. It's a kind of protectionism, serving to maintain the current distribution of power.

 

[Namelesa]

The first logical reason to be against AI is the fact that all its data is stolen. The people who's work was and is used to feed AI was never credited, those people were never paid. It shouldn't be legal, in my opinion. Several companies are also pushing for that behind people's backs, like Behance putting a setting automatically toggled on that allows them to use any work you put in their platform for AI training. They don't disclose anything, they hope no one notices until it's too late.

It's not just a tool when it's using data that was not consented to be used and when all the people who produced their data aren't credited nor paid for its usage.

whether AI is stealing things is actually a more complicated question. If the AI is just using facts from other sources that doesn't count as stealing as facts can't be copyrighted. AI also might seem to also use data like how we use other media as inspiration. We don't credit people for inspirations of our work so it makes some sense for AI not credit the data they use.

I personally don't know the morality of using AI but I think this video is interesting:


there is definitely some argument to be made AI is actually okay to use??? I kind wish it isn't okay to use but saying the AI steals things might not be a good enough argument that its bad to use.

 

[TheGoodGuy]

I use AI to review some of my answers before posting, especially if I'm saying something that I think might be misunderstood, or unintentionally offend someone.

I'd like to say X to someone who is strongly convinced of Y: "You are wrong. X is true because of reasons".
Is this clear and logically coherent?
AI would probably tell me to drop the 'you are wrong', and give some feedback on both the grammar and the arguments.

Aah okay that seems smart instead of when people claim hold heartedly they´re right and making themselves look like an idiot. For that purpose I think it seems fine I thought it was for high IQ threads or emotional responses to posts that I wouldn´t like, you want responses from actual people otherwise we could just chat with an AI and some of us also put a lot of time into making long thought provoking threads so again I think those long often philosophical threads should come from actual people.

 

[Dot]

@Saturn_ lol was your post actually deleted by mods?

I think it's ridiculous to delete stuff that violates no rules because of how it was generated on a site full of neurodiverse people with a hard time expressing themselves.

Pretty much all of my longer theory posts used ai as an assistant at least a little. I'm not allowed to delete my own posts and wipe my account, but we're considering whether they can be deleted because of the tools I used. . . Lol.

Honestly though I tend to be against banning ai in every instance because I never see any, ANY, logical reasons for it. If a post is bad, it will fail. If art is not as good as a human's, it won't be popular. Complaints about "generic" posts and/or low effort content in this day and age are funny to me. If it's giving wrong information, call it out/correct it like you would a non ai post, considering people get shit wrong all the time. If it brakes an existing rule, it gets removed for breaking that rule.

Whether you enjoy the content personally should be a separate consideration from whether you want it banned, as with all content. If you have a logic based argument for banning use of the tool (which you can't be sure was used or not used anyway) that I'm missing please share.


The newer search and reasoning models are getting much better at linking their sources and quoting excerpts.

Thnk thre = dffrnce betwn usng AI t/ hlp wth smethng & ppl jst usng AI insted of havng propr convrsatns

Slf hve bn usng AI whn tryn2 pt 2gthr a specfc recvry thred tht slf hve bn spendng *mnths* on bcse slf concntratn issus mn tht slf am strgglng 2 structre th/ info in a cohesve wy

Bt genrlly ppl cme 2 a frum 2 spk wth othr ppl - s/ if = obvs tht ppl r makng 0 effrt in thr psts & jst usng AI 2 mke thr pnts fr thm etc thn = bcmes obslete havng thse dscussns

S/ imo = wld nt b a 'AI = bad' blankt apprch bt wld b removl of psts whre ppl r eithr obvsly spammng or usng 0 effrt in thr cmmuncatn

As wth evrythng = wld b balnce

 

[Saturn_]

@Saturn_ lol was your post actually deleted by mods?

I deleted it because well, it is on a thread that raises the possibility that posts are getting banned for using AI, even if it was a joke.

 

[SVEN]

View attachment 161621

And, is that a wee tad of Meerkat I'm detecting in there ?

 

[fallingtopieces]

I steal "data" from every person I interact with to refine my own internal algorithms. I don't credit each of them with each new writing nor pay them, and I've never gotten payment either!

Artists steal from every previous artist that inspired them. They don't have to credit them all with each new release.

I guess I don't see how you can put product out into the world and not expect others to learn from it at all.

well i hope you don't work on copyright law.

people if you're using AI to formulate your post have the decency to state that you did. neurodiverse folks using it and translations are another thing.

i want to know if i'm responding to 20%, 50%, or x% robot.

fuck AI theft and all the rationalizations that try to justify mass theft. why do some people get to make billions of this theft? openai is overvaluated +$250 billion. at the very least shouldn't we demand ALL of it be free for everyone considering the widespread theft?

the internet has turned to shit as it were already. hard to trust most anything, filled with bots, hucksters, shills, ads ads ads, affiliate links, misinformation, disinformation and overall enshitiffication.

 

[derpyderpins]

well i hope you don't work on copyright law.

Well I do from time to time and it's something I've studied thoroughly, especially the relevant "fair use."

So do you say that because you think I'm incorrect or because you wish it wasn't so? Or just to be a jerk and imply I'm stupid in some way?

people if you're using AI to formulate your post have the decency to state that you did. neurodiverse folks using it and translations are another thing.

Where's the line? I'm neurodiverse. How much am I allowed to use it?

fuck AI theft and all the rationalizations that try to justify mass theft. why do some people get to make billions of this theft? openai is overvaluated +$250 billion. at the very least shouldn't we demand ALL of it be free for everyone?

What theft? What novel creation that had demonstrable value has been taken and sold in a comparable market without transformative adjustments?

 

[fallingtopieces]

Well I do from time to time and it's something I've studied thoroughly, especially the relevant "fair use."

So do you say that because you think I'm incorrect or because you wish it wasn't so? Or just to be a jerk and imply I'm stupid in some way?

Where's the line? I'm neurodiverse. How much am I allowed to use it?

What theft? What novel creation that had demonstrable value has been taken and sold in a comparable market without transformative adjustments?

use it to your hearts content. but how do people know what part is a person and what part is AI? or if it's entirely AI? maybe say i used a little AI in your longer theory posts for example. people think you wrote them entirely. That's simple, no line needs to be measured.

i'm not going to argue mass AI theft with a lawyer that thinks there is no theft. with billions of dollars from that theft, they have plenty of money and lawyers fighting the many copyright lawsuits.

i'll repeat the part you didn't respond to:

the internet has turned to shit as it were already. hard to trust most anything, filled with bots, hucksters, shills, ads ads ads, affiliate links, misinformation, disinformation and overall enshitiffication.

i.e. you have "ads that look like legit Reddit user posts" on reddit. shills incorporated. reddit was built on users and communities, and now that's being sold off to AI companies. A handful of people will make lots of money thanks to hundreds of millions of users. Typical silicon valley, like the gig economy, which is basically modern day serfdom.

Well I do from time to time and it's something I've studied thoroughly, especially the relevant "fair use."

So do you say that because you think I'm incorrect or because you wish it wasn't so? Or just to be a jerk and imply I'm stupid in some way?

PS did you consider if maybe you were being a jerk to someone whose livelihood has been threatened by AI theft?

Artists steal from every previous artist that inspired them? I guess that answers that?? Outright theft, directly stealing, feeding large language models verbatim stolen data, articles, art, music, books, etc... Is that inspired?

I steal "data" from every person I interact with to refine my own internal algorithms. I don't credit each of them with each new writing nor pay them, and I've never gotten payment either!

Artists steal from every previous artist that inspired them. They don't have to credit them all with each new release.

I guess I don't see how you can put product out into the world and not expect others to learn from it at all.