Should all content posted anywhere on this forum as factual information require attribution?

I think the answer is yes.

We now live in a world flooded with AI generated content. Just because information comes from ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any other AI model does not automatically make it accurate.

These systems can and do consistently produce hallucinations, incorrect facts, outdated information, and completely invented details presented with great confidence.

For that reason, I think any factual claims posted from an AI generated summary should also include the original source material that the AI used, assuming sources are available. And if the AI cannot produce a source for the information, then it should not be posted, or it should be clearly labelled as unverified.

Without attribution, there is really no way for anyone to verify the information independently. Readers are effectively being asked and expected to trust the AI rather than the underlying evidence.

In my view, AI generated content should not be treated as a source in itself. It should be treated as a tool that helps locate, organize, and summarize information from actual sources and then the sources need to be scrutinized.

In my own use of AI apps, I have created personal settings on all of them that force the AI models to label each piece of information they provide to me as either “Certain”, “Likely”, or “Guessing”. It makes it much easier to distinguish their outputs between fact and fiction and gives me a better idea of how much confidence I should place in what I am reading.

Otherwise, what value does the information really have?

12 minutes ago, BilllyGOAT said:

Should all content posted anywhere on this forum as factual information require attribution?

I think the answer is yes.

We now live in a world flooded with AI generated content. Just because information comes from ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any other AI model does not automatically make it accurate.

These systems can and do consistently produce hallucinations, incorrect facts, outdated information, and completely invented details presented with great confidence.

For that reason, I think any factual claims posted from an AI generated summary should also include the original source material that the AI used, assuming sources are available. And if the AI cannot produce a source for the information, then it should not be posted, or it should be clearly labelled as unverified.

Without attribution, there is really no way for anyone to verify the information independently. Readers are effectively being asked and expected to trust the AI rather than the underlying evidence.

In my view, AI generated content should not be treated as a source in itself. It should be treated as a tool that helps locate, organize, and summarize information from actual sources and then the sources need to be scrutinized.

In my own use of AI apps, I have created personal settings on all of them that force the AI models to label each piece of information they provide to me as either “Certain”, “Likely”, or “Guessing”. It makes it much easier to distinguish their outputs between fact and fiction and gives me a better idea of how much confidence I should place in what I am reading.

Otherwise, what value does the information really have?

Only salvation: Every content using AI should be marked at such. (Some "mediatheks" are doing this already).

Everybody not adhering to this principle: 10 years in prison.

If not, the world will drown in uncontrolled "misinformation".

23 minutes ago, BilllyGOAT said:

Should all content posted anywhere on this forum as factual information require attribution?

I think the answer is yes.

We now live in a world flooded with AI generated content. Just because information comes from ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any other AI model does not automatically make it accurate.

These systems can and do consistently produce hallucinations, incorrect facts, outdated information, and completely invented details presented with great confidence.

For that reason, I think any factual claims posted from an AI generated summary should also include the original source material that the AI used, assuming sources are available. And if the AI cannot produce a source for the information, then it should not be posted, or it should be clearly labelled as unverified.

Without attribution, there is really no way for anyone to verify the information independently. Readers are effectively being asked and expected to trust the AI rather than the underlying evidence.

In my view, AI generated content should not be treated as a source in itself. It should be treated as a tool that helps locate, organize, and summarize information from actual sources and then the sources need to be scrutinized.

In my own use of AI apps, I have created personal settings on all of them that force the AI models to label each piece of information they provide to me as either “Certain”, “Likely”, or “Guessing”. It makes it much easier to distinguish their outputs between fact and fiction and gives me a better idea of how much confidence I should place in what I am reading.

Otherwise, what value does the information really have?

Don't use AI. Use your own, if you have any.

Everything produced or assisted by AI should be clearly labeled as such.

Trying to attribute/reference everything would take an age and make the AI posts even longer.

YES....!!!

Attribution should ALWAYS be required by us true ACADEMICS....

To quote NOAM.....

EVERYBODY knows this.

34 minutes ago, BilllyGOAT said:

Should all content posted anywhere on this forum as factual information require attribution?

I think the answer is yes.

We now live in a world flooded with AI generated content. Just because information comes from ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any other AI model does not automatically make it accurate.

These systems can and do consistently produce hallucinations, incorrect facts, outdated information, and completely invented details presented with great confidence.

For that reason, I think any factual claims posted from an AI generated summary should also include the original source material that the AI used, assuming sources are available. And if the AI cannot produce a source for the information, then it should not be posted, or it should be clearly labelled as unverified.

Without attribution, there is really no way for anyone to verify the information independently. Readers are effectively being asked and expected to trust the AI rather than the underlying evidence.

In my view, AI generated content should not be treated as a source in itself. It should be treated as a tool that helps locate, organize, and summarize information from actual sources and then the sources need to be scrutinized.

In my own use of AI apps, I have created personal settings on all of them that force the AI models to label each piece of information they provide to me as either “Certain”, “Likely”, or “Guessing”. It makes it much easier to distinguish their outputs between fact and fiction and gives me a better idea of how much confidence I should place in what I am reading.

Otherwise, what value does the information really have?

Yes, people need to provide sources. ChatGPT does provide sources, but I disregard information from Reddit or similar sources.

Should all content posted anywhere on this forum as factual information require attribution?

Yes, here is some examples:

In the Welcome to the World News Forum:

• Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to a mainstream media source.

In the Welcome to the Political Forum :

• Links to outside content should always include relevant commentary. Blind links to outside content with no context or explanation may be removed.

In the Welcome to "What the Papers are Saying" forum:

If you are posting a news article for discussion, please check the following:

• Its within "fair use"; that is - the title and a paragraph about the story.

• Its not already posted in World News, Soap Box or other News areas on the forum; duplication will be removed.

• Please always provide a link to your original source

In the War in Ukraine forum - welcome :

• Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved, credible source.

In the The War in Israel forum:

• Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.

The main reason I posted this topic is because there are now a number of users who consistently post content generated by AI as if it is providing some useful information that other people cannot just as easily find by themselves.

Personally I find much of it a waste of time and space. Most of this information is readily available and does not need to be regurgitated by another forum member.

I definitely do think AI content has its place on the forum. For example when someone is asking a specific question and another user uses AI to help find or clearly summarize information that is genuinely difficult to present otherwise. In those cases it can be very useful.

What I am seeing however is heavy overuse. It is being used either as the basis for starting new topics, or as filler by some people who cannot think of an original response on their own but still wants to have a voice in the discussion.

In most cases I see at least some effort to make it transparent via screenshots of the AI output so it is clear where it came from and readers can more easily judge it for what it is, or in my case, simply completely skip over the post.

The problem is when people copy and paste only the text from AI responses directly into posts with no reference at all, presenting it as if it is their own informed contribution. That, in my view, is the part that should be fully halted.

Even the screenshot approach becomes questionable when it is used purely as filler rather than as a direct answer to a question where someone is actually looking for help and it definitely should not be the basis of initiating a brand new topic for discussion or debate.

Otherwise it starts to feel like noise. Content for the sake of content, rather than meaningful contribution to a discussion.

No attribution should not always be required because

a lot of sources are not allowed on AN.