Should AI copy and paste responses be banned from political discussions here?

[editor]

There's been a growing number of people copying and pasting swathes of AI content in response to posts here.

Although that might be a fun in some threads (I've done it a couple of times in the past), I personally think it's unacceptable when it comes to serious political discussion.

Interacting with a long list of bullet pointed, computer generated paragraphs strays far from what this board was set up to do, and it's also incredibly lazy (and often runs the risk of being wildly inaccurate too).

What's your opinion, urbanites?

 

[Pickman's model]

if you can't be arsed to write your own posts you should not post on urban. -> content-free posts, warning points -> ban

 

[spitfire]

If you can't be arsed to write your own posts you should not post on urban.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

At the very least, they need to be flagged as such, although they're painfully obviously AI most of the time.

 

[spitfire]

Dammit Pickmans!

 

[CNT36]

If you can't be arsed to write your own posts you should not post on urban.

That's you out then...

 

[Petcha]

I think if they're flagged and using the quote tag it's fine

 

[CNT36]

I think if they're flagged and using the quote tag it's fine

Ffs don't ask AI for a flag.

 

[editor]

I think if they're flagged and using the quote tag it's fine

But this board wasn't set up to hear what AI algorithms think about a subject: it's for people to discuss their opinions and thoughts.

What happens if the poster counters your AI-laden content with their own slab of AI copy and paste?

 

[CNT36]

But this board wasn't set up to hear what AI algorithms think about a subject: it's for people to discuss their opinions and thoughts.

What happens if the poster counters your AI-laden content with their own slab of AI copy and paste?

We could ask a third AI which is better.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ffs don't ask AI for a flag.

It got a bit confused...

 

[Petcha]

But this board wasn't set up to hear what AI algorithms think about a subject: it's for people to discuss their opinions and thoughts.

What happens if the poster counters your AI-laden content with their own slab of AI copy and paste?

I know. But I flagged that post as coming from AI and offered my opinion on its conclusion. I think that's fair enough.

 

[ddraig]

I get it. But I think it can be useful at times if it's properly acknowledged. It's no different to a C&P from a mainstream legacy news outlet like the Guardian.

e2a - from the other thread
Really? is AI a trained journalist with proper sources and accountability??

 

[editor]

I know. But I flagged that post as coming from AI and offered my opinion on its conclusion. I think that's fair enough.

You claimed that churned out AI content is "no different to a C&P from a mainstream legacy news outlet like the Guardian."

That is quite a depressing statement.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Yes. It was entertaining for about five minutes a little while back but not any more IMO, and it definitely doesn't add anything useful.

 

[Petcha]

You're aware that quite a lot of mainstream journalism is using AI now right? So lifting copy from an article from say the Guardian or the NY Times could quite possibly contain AI generated content? Which of course the subs will edit to get it through any filters.

I thought that was why was forum was set up - to discuss these issues. Hopefully without anger.

 

[Pickman's model]

It got a bit confused...

here's a flag i knocked up earlier

 

[Petcha]

You claimed that churned out AI content is "no different to a C&P from a mainstream legacy news outlet like the Guardian."

That is quite a depressing statement.

Yep, it's depressing.

AI is generated from people. It then learns from those people and builds on it based on what other people think.

I think it's reasonable to go to something like ChatGTP to crowdsource a few other opinions and then debate those.

 

[Pickman's model]

You're aware that quite a lot of mainstream journalism is using AI now right? So lifting copy from an article from say the Guardian or the NY Times could quite possibly contain AI generated content? Which of course the subs will edit to get it through any filters.

I thought that was why was forum was set up - to discuss these issues. Hopefully without anger.

why without anger? there's lots of things we discuss where if you're not angry you're not paying attention.

 

[editor]

e2a - from the other thread
Really? is AI a trained journalist with proper sources and accountability??

Apple News is a good case in point. Their laughably backfiring AI news feature churned out a load of wildly inaccurate information.

It was so shit they had to withdraw the service.

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.

Apple suspends AI-generated news alert service after BBC complaint

Inaccurate notices branded with broadcaster’s logo sent to iPhone users but tech firm works on improvements

www.theguardian.com

Here's an amusing take on it:

 

[Petcha]

why without anger? there's lots of things we discuss where if you're not angry you're not paying attention.

I get that. But quoting AI is different to posting an entirely AI written post.

 

[editor]

I think it's reasonable to go to something like ChatGTP to crowdsource a few other opinions and then debate those.

That's got absolutely nothing to do with posting up slabs of AI blather as part of a political debate.

 

[klang]

I think it's reasonable to go to something like ChatGTP to crowdsource a few other opinions and then debate those.

(((monothoughtclique)))

 

[Pickman's model]

I get that. But quoting AI is different to posting an entirely AI written post.

different to. but not better than.

 

[Petcha]

That's got absolutely nothing to do with posting up slabs of AI blather as part of a political debate.

But it's ok to post up paragraphs from Toynbee or Freedland?

 

[weepiper]

Yes. It does my head in.

 

[Pickman's model]

But it's ok to post up paragraphs from Toynbee or Freedland?

only if you're mercilessly ripping the piss out of toynbee and freedland

 

[Petcha]

It needs to be used in moderation. But I doubt you'd have set up this AI forum if you didn't think it was a fairly important issue and worthy of debate.

 

[Pickman's model]

It needs to be used in moderation. But I doubt you'd have set up this AI forum if you didn't think it was a fairly important issue and worthy of debate.

it'll be used to search the threads and dole out warning points and bans

 

[editor]

For illustration purposes only, this is the kind of post that I think should be banned off this forum. Those endless bullet points give me the heebeegeebees.

--

Poster: I think there's some things to be considered about the use of AI content on urban, and here's what AI thinks of it:

This is a tricky question with no easy answer! Here's a breakdown of the arguments to consider:

Arguments for banning AI-generated responses:

• Authenticity and accountability: Political discussions thrive on genuine human interaction and the expression of personal opinions. Copy-pasted AI responses can feel inauthentic and make it difficult to hold anyone accountable for the views expressed.
• Preventing manipulation: AI-generated text can be used to flood discussions with biased or misleading information, potentially manipulating the conversation and influencing opinions.
• Encouraging critical thinking: Formulating original responses encourages users to engage more deeply with the issues and develop their own critical thinking skills. Relying on AI responses could discourage this.
• Maintaining focus: AI-generated responses can sometimes be verbose or go off-topic, derailing the conversation and making it harder to follow.

Arguments against banning AI-generated responses:

• Accessibility and inclusivity: AI tools can help people with limited writing skills or language barriers participate in discussions.
• Generating ideas and sparking debate: AI-generated text can introduce new perspectives or arguments, stimulating further discussion and enriching the debate.
• Educational value: AI can provide summaries of complex issues or offer different viewpoints, potentially educating users and broadening their understanding.
• Difficulty of enforcement: It can be challenging to reliably detect AI-generated text, making a ban difficult to enforce consistently.

Recommendations for urban75:

Instead of an outright ban, consider these alternatives:

• Transparency: Encourage users to disclose when they're using AI-generated text.
• Critical engagement: Promote a culture of critical thinking, where users are encouraged to question and analyze all contributions, whether from humans or AI.
• Moderation focus: Train moderators to identify and address manipulative uses of AI-generated text.
• Community discussion: Engage the urban75 community in a discussion about the use of AI in political discussions and develop guidelines together.

Ultimately, finding the right balance between encouraging authentic human interaction and leveraging the potential benefits of AI is crucial.