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?

I think some of those AI enhanced posts don't make much sense.

Let's say an idiot has a stupid thought. And then he uses AI (LLM) to make that stupid idea sound somehow better. It doesn't work.

If an intelligent person writes something, maybe in a foreign language, then I am sure AI can help to make this sound better. That's ok.

 

Today I read an interesting article about the Turing Test and the ability of humans to spot if an answer was written by a human.

It seems what they have to do now is to make the AI response more stupid. There are just not many people who can answer everything with a reasonable competent answer. AI is on the way to be able to do that. So, a good interactive way to spot an AI is to ask lots of complicated questions. If the AI has good answers to everything, then most likely it is an AI.

 

In this forum I like to communicate with real people in the way they are - not AI enhanced version of those people.

 

 

43 minutes ago, RSD1 said:

A person could write something themselves that is complete fiction and post and present it as a true story, thus misleading you.

It’s safe to assume most of what presumed individuals post about themselves on any anonymous forum is fanatical. Starting with the ones with the most verbiage. 

1 minute ago, novacova said:

It’s safe to assume most of what presumed individuals post about themselves on any anonymous forum is fanatical. Starting with the ones with the most verbiage. 

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. 

Your perspective on AI-generated content is thought-provoking and highlights several important considerations. The authenticity and value of content should indeed be measured by the quality and relevance of the ideas presented, not necessarily by the method of its creation. Whether a post is written by a human or an AI, the essential factor is the genuineness of the thoughts and the effectiveness of the communication.

 

It's true that humans can mislead just as much as an AI could be used to convey true, coherent ideas. This blurs the lines between traditional notions of authenticity. A well-written, AI-generated piece based on true events can be more valuable than a poorly written, fictional human account. The advancement of AI has made it possible for individuals who struggle with writing to express their ideas clearly and effectively, ensuring that valuable insights are not lost due to linguistic barriers.

 

Focusing too much on the origins of the content rather than the content itself can distract from the substantive discussion. By dismissing posts based solely on their potential AI origins, we risk overlooking meaningful contributions. It's important to engage with the ideas presented and evaluate them on their merits rather than their source. Ultimately, respecting and considering the message should take precedence over speculating about its creation, fostering a more inclusive and thoughtful discourse.

 

ech-hmmm...  

 

 

37 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

In this forum I like to communicate with real people in the way they are - not AI enhanced version of those people.

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'm sure AI has a valuable place in our lives, and I use it at work for data analysis, but what is mentioned in the OP is the large language models (LLM) that utilise the web plus the ability to construct sentences to create human sounding phrases.

 

If you can write coherently in the required language, and are knowledgeable on the subject, LLM's add little value.  If you know nothing and can't string a sentence together, they are helpful.

 

Personally, I'd rather read something written by HI (Human intelligence) that  computer generated bull &#!£.

 

OK... so I'm not sure if people will get my point.

 

I thought people would be able to identify that my earlier comment was 100% AI generated.

I hadn't even fully read the Op at that point.

 

 

The "ech-hmmm...  " comment at the end was intended to indicate the element of irony.

 

The only human input was:

- GPT Prompt - Provide a 200 word response to the following

- Paste the Op into GPT

- Copy and paste the GPT response into here

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

OK... so I'm not sure if people will get my point.

 

I thought people would be able to identify that my earlier comment was 100% AI generated.

I hadn't even fully read the Op at that point.

 

 

The "ech-hmmm...  " comment at the end was intended to indicate the element of irony.

 

The only human input was:

- GPT Prompt - Provide a 200 word response to the following

- Paste the Op into GPT

- Copy and paste the GPT response into here

 

 

 

 

And I bet it wrote it 10x faster than you probably would've taken to compile edit and post it.👍

2 hours ago, RSD1 said:

So if someone wants to express their thoughts and uses AI by providing it with prompts, is that wrong?

Morally? No. Why? Did you AI generate the OP?
 

 

2 hours ago, RSD1 said:

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.

I’d much rather read an individuals genuine text with all the grammatical errors and whatnot opposed to something machine generated, what’s wrong with an exercise of mental fortitude and discipline to decipher a script? The problem I have with using AI to write a text is the lack of discipline that an individual is willing to put in to excel in a normal functioning social manner. Do we really want society to get further dumbed down? We have enough of that already with so many being mesmerized by phones and media. 
 

 

2 hours ago, RSD1 said:

AI shaming just dismissing the person's message itself and avoiding the points that the poster is trying to convey?

Shaming? I know you’re discussing AN posts but would you rather hire an individual who is well read and educated for a project that requires critical thought and skills, or an IA fed plagiarized reiterator? AI has its place in the industrial world, my younger colleagues in the field I used to work in are beginning to use it in some research. But AI will never fully replace the capabilities of the human brain, at least not what’s left in my lifetime. Anyway I personally think it matters.

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Let's say an idiot has a stupid thought. And then he uses AI (LLM) to make that stupid idea sound somehow better. It doesn't work.

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?"

25 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

OK... so I'm not sure if people will get my point.

 

I thought people would be able to identify that my earlier comment was 100% AI generated.

I hadn't even fully read the Op at that point.

 

 

The "ech-hmmm...  " comment at the end was intended to indicate the element of irony.

 

The only human input was:

- GPT Prompt - Provide a 200 word response to the following

- Paste the Op into GPT

- Copy and paste the GPT response into here

 

 

 

 

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. 
 

 

Well, let's just do away with all human posters on this forum and give the AI bots an online wallet to purchase anything 'they' want from the click-through adverts 🙂

2 minutes ago, simon43 said:

Well, let's just do away with all human posters on this forum and give the AI bots an online wallet to purchase anything 'they' want from the click-through adverts 🙂

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.

To me, intelligence is intelligence, it doesn't matter if it is AI or HI.

 

The only caveat I would have is AI is not omniscient, it's only as good as the "facts" it is given.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Your perspective on AI-generated content is thought-provoking and highlights several important considerations. The authenticity and value of content should indeed be measured by the quality and relevance of the ideas presented, not necessarily by the method of its creation. Whether a post is written by a human or an AI, the essential factor is the genuineness of the thoughts and the effectiveness of the communication.

 

It's true that humans can mislead just as much as an AI could be used to convey true, coherent ideas. This blurs the lines between traditional notions of authenticity. A well-written, AI-generated piece based on true events can be more valuable than a poorly written, fictional human account. The advancement of AI has made it possible for individuals who struggle with writing to express their ideas clearly and effectively, ensuring that valuable insights are not lost due to linguistic barriers.

 

Focusing too much on the origins of the content rather than the content itself can distract from the substantive discussion. By dismissing posts based solely on their potential AI origins, we risk overlooking meaningful contributions. It's important to engage with the ideas presented and evaluate them on their merits rather than their source. Ultimately, respecting and considering the message should take precedence over speculating about its creation, fostering a more inclusive and thoughtful discourse.

 

ech-hmmm...  

 

 

For the first time ever I agree with you.

 

Well said.

34 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

And I bet it wrote it 10x faster than you probably would've taken to compile edit and post it.👍

I wonder what AI moderation would be like?

Scammers are using AI telephone calling,  if you receive a random call

please ask 'are you AI' if it answers 'yes' you know what to do.

 

Just now, MalcolmB said:

I wonder what AI moderation would be like?

...... AW - Artificial Woke.

4 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

I wonder what AI moderation would be like?

Expensive and totally impractical.(Imho)

1 hour ago, RSD1 said:

Awful grammar, poor sentence structuring,

 

Should be....

 

Awful grammar, poor sentence structure, .....

 

So, maybe the AI does not work as well as one might wish?

 

 

1 minute ago, CharlieH said:

Expensive and totally impractical.(Imho)

Wouldn’t be as good as you mate.

 

 

25 minutes ago, RSD1 said:

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. 
 

 

Valid counter, the quality of output most certainly dependant on the quality of input / prompt - I was lazy, ergo the response, as you correctly pointed out was somewhat redundant.

 

The issue I see with AI is that some of us consider we are being taken for a ride with some of the topics designed provoke us, lure us in, to trigger us, to cause debate...  are we fools for responding to an AI generated OP ?.... 

 

Personally, I would much rather discuss, debate, argue and throw around ideas based on someones genuine input rather than a post designed purely to trigger clicks - thus I consider the use of AI from this perspective somewhat deceitful. 

 

That said, some people write so poorly, using AI could make their content (responses) more readily understood.

 

 

1 minute ago, MalcolmB said:

Wouldn’t be as good as you mate.

 

 

AI own answer......

 

"Human oversight is usually necessary to ensure accuracy and fairness, especially in nuanced situations where context is important"

 

😉

Adult sexual content removed.

I think I could identify a fair few posters from the text alone. Or get close. There is one poster who has taken on several identities, and others too, and it doesn't take long to work that out. I don't come here for facts except the rare occasion I have a visa question or something. You come here to read different personalities express themselves and interact and AI is a poor substitute for that. 

What would you do if AI made a decision for you that you don't like?

Sorry to say that I would tell it to get stuffed.

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The advancement of AI has made it possible for individuals who struggle with writing to express their ideas clearly and effectively, ensuring that valuable insights are not lost due to linguistic barriers.

Maybe I am wrong, but I prefer a bad written original post compared to an AI enhanced post.

Because the AI might enhance it, and make it sound better, and add some details, but all of that is not authentic.

 

The original information might be from someone who was in a fire of a big building. With few information. Put that in an LLM and that will be able to add additional information which the LLM found on the internet. This information might be right, or it might be wrong. We don't know.

 

I know we won't read all accurate information from real people in an anonymous forum. But we can/do filter what we read. That is more difficult after AI "enhanced" whatever was originally written.

4 hours ago, RSD1 said:

Perhaps if they were better orators though you might be more willing to at lead read a bit of their rubbish.

Maybe I would read more.

But if I see rubbish, then I don't read it.

If I see AI enhanced rubbish, then maybe it will be a little longer before I stop reading. So, I wasted more time. I don't want to waste my time. 

4 hours ago, RSD1 said:

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 want to know if it is news or fiction.

If I want the news, then I prefer authentic information, that means mostly no AI.

If I want fiction, then I like to enjoy that. If AI makes it better, then that is fine with me. It's fiction.