RSD1

Just once? Sounds like lots of missed opportunities.

Maybe up in Ubon Ratchabooty, but not in Puh-Thai-Yuh.

Hi Shure-A-Sack. 😂

Guess they just changed the rules on that. But Saturdays are still good, right?

Some of the most popular topics on here are quite possibly AI. But since they are so heavily replied to then what does that tell you? People vote with their feet, but they also don't really care if it's AI or not. It's all about content as I mentioned. If you want the real world forums isn't the place. Also, if you wrote 100 replies on a very popular AI post you would get far more other members reading and responding to what you wrote than if you commented on some unpopular post written by someone real. That's why so many people respond to those triggering threads. Often they aren't even addressing the OP. They have FOMO on the melee and all jump-in in a frenzy. Even the people that try to write real replies are just a bunch of anecdotal crowd-sourced data dumps. They are just opinions, often incorrect too.

You mean I can't become one?

Must of been drinking Mekong whiskey at the time.

Go easy on your hand there. Your gonna need it to throw bowling balls down the alley next week.

What do you need to do to be labeled as a sex pest? I'm willing to give it a try.

In that case was Reagan any more qualified to be president than Michelle Obama would? At least these presidential wives have spent 4-8 years in the White House watching their husbands play president.

That's where I think it matters the least. When I write on a forum of this nature then I'm just responding to anonymous texts, most of which are either imaginative responses or sarcasm created by the poster in order to get a response or reaction. So the information could be false or misleading anyway. Thus, it doesn't matter if the fake thoughts are fully human or AI enhanced. So when people flame on posts and say that they're AI, I think they are not really focused on what's important. To me what's more important is not who or what wrote it but whether or not the content reflects anything real or important. People should be questioning what's being portrayed to them in the text rather than how the text was arrived at. Also, forums are not the real world to begin with and I never treat them as such. If you see them otherwise then I think that's part of a slippery slope of living in an imaginary world.

I use AI to help with some of my work related documents that I write. I then reread after it edits my writing and I make sure the content is still factual, nothing added in that I didn't want, and that the writing still fully reflects my tone and writing style. This ensures authenticity. I may go back and forth with the AI 2-3 times before settling on a final draft. I assume anyone who uses AI as a tool for writing applies it in the same way. As I said earlier, it's just a tool and it doesn't control things. It's there to enhance and improve the result and that's what I use it for.

@bob smith does twice per day. And his favorite card is 6/1.

I didn't read a single sentence of your first post. Only the subject header of the topic. Then I scrolled down and read the last sentence of your reply and here we are.

Suddenly you've given up your usual diatribes about inanimate objects like washing machines, computer chairs and light bulbs and you're onto some sort of political soapbox tirade. Why bother? You're clearly out of your league now on topics involving intellectual humans with your typical posting style that consists of a flurry of whimsical, one sentence paragraphs, overuse of the enter key, and inline linked photos and YouTube videos. Why not stick to your usual non-topical type topics and post some more threads about things like adult undergarments, the last bit of peanut butter that always gets stuck in the bottom of the jar or maybe one about where to buy the best silk pajamas online? Or at least reply to yourself on this topic with 4-5 more posts of meaningless afterthoughts before this topic rightfully gets kicked out of The Pub by the mods and relegated for being in the wrong board.

Isn't that what's already happening here? Do you think I really even wrote any of this? Or that I am even real? You take the blue pill and the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Remember; all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.

I didn't realize your post was AI, nor do I really care (and that's my point) but I left a thanks on it because I thought you well understood the concept I was trying to convey. Though, when I read the post I did think it was overly redundant on the points I already made and didn't really see the point of why you posted it. So I don't think the AI failed, but you could have certainly put some better effort into your prompting to add some of your own real thoughts and ideas into the post rather than just regurgitating what I already said. This proves my point that to get something useful from the tool you really need to add some effort via human input and intervention and it isn't a matter of just giving it a short prompt. Garbage in garbage out.

Let's apply some realness to the situation. You and I know nothing about the real people behind our respective AN user names. And we are most likely never going to meet each other in real life either. So we don't really know each other and probably never will. But let's say I have some deeply interesting ideas to share that might inspire you, but I would be hopeless at writing them out. Would you really care if it's the real me (whom you don't know anyway) writing out these thoughts to you in some unintelligible text that I wrote myself or if I'm using an AI tool to assist me to articulate them? At the end of the day, AI is just another tool controlled by humans, not a sentient being with its own ideas. So all it's doing is taking my ideas and spelling them out, literally. Thus, this notion about authenticity goes out the window unless we really know each other and there is a need for there to be personal authenticity. If you talk about people who work in creative arts fields, they all use tools to create the media you consume and enjoy. You don't really know the real them either, but you're still happy to enjoy what they create without questioning or knowing how they created it. Whether it's film, music, art, photography, etc, they all have their own tools and techniques and often how they create stuff isn't shared with the public. Does that make their work any less authentic on how they got from point A to point B any more important? So writing is really no different. It is, in a way, just another form of creative ants and AI is just another tool used to actualize their work. "Do you think that's air that you're breathing now?"

so where is a good place to buy eggs?

I think the types being referred to here are different. The ones back in the 90s were indeed characters, less troublesome and a bit more eclectic, odd and interesting. At that time you had to be a bit more intrepid to be able to navigate a place like Thailand. Now any moke with a smartphone, Google maps, and a few links about nightlife can show up in Thailand and start making a big mess of things.

I think it's hard to generalize on this point. There are a few posters on this site that post absolutely rubbish and get lambasted for it all the time. Awful grammar, poor sentence structuring, spacing and paragraph issues. Sometimes lots of tangential links and video clips added in. I don't think I need to mention who they are. And a lot of what they post is really just uninteresting dribble. Perhaps if they were better orators though you might be more willing to at lead read a bit of their rubbish. Something well worded about nothing can still be more interesting to read than an article about something interesting that is hard to comprehend because of poor writing skills. Think about all the great fictional novels out there that are well written and enjoyed and then the poorly written news articles about important topics. Which would you rather read?

I think it's hard to generalize based on verbiage, but, sure, there is probably a lot of fictional accounts. That's the inherent nature of the internet. You have to expect that. But that isn't my point. I am talking about text generation, I'm not speculating about how much is fake or how much is reality. That's a separate discussion.

Really? Isn't that nearly what every post in this section of the forum is based on? It's a section for sharing a wide range of ideas and perspectives, often controversial, and argumentative topics. The whole point of "The Pub" is to let it all unwind and allow it provoke arguments as long as they don't completely denigrate someone or some thing.

Many people on here are quick to jump to conclusions about posts being written by AI. Does it really matter? Does a post written by an anonymous person you will never meet or ever know in real life make it more genuine or real? A person could write something themselves that is complete fiction and post and present it as a true story, thus misleading you. Conversely, someone could post a completely true account written by AI that's easy to comprehend. Wouldn't you prefer to read the non-fictional account generated by AI rather than some fluff written by a human that's just jerking your chain? After all, isn't it the content that counts? AI models are now more articulate than most humans anyway. So if someone wants to express their thoughts and uses AI by providing it with prompts, is that wrong? If the person has good ideas but struggles with writing, wouldn't you rather read something they have had well-written by AI than reading their own choppy text that's difficult to absorb? In the end, it's baffling why so many people spend their time on AN debating whether a post is AI-generated or not. Personally, whether the post is AI or not, I don't give a toss because there are still genuine human thoughts behind those posts, even if AI may have composed some of them. Ultimately, it's the ideas that matter. So, isn't all this speculative AI shaming just dismissing the person's message itself and avoiding the points that the poster is trying to convey?