A post with a derogatory nickname of another member has been removed.

19 hours ago, BilllyGOAT said:

We are at a point where some people simply abuse it all. They constantly post AI slop as if it is their own thoughts by copying and pasting words from an AI summary into a post on a topic, often multiple times on the same topic, and they add nothing else to their responses. No attribution and none of their own original opinions or content. Just low quality responses that nobody needs or wants. These individuals do it incessantly. You probably know who I'm mainly referring to. It should be stopped.

Why not just take everything you read on internet forums with a giant grain of salt? After a few sentences of 'AI Slop', you should be able to recognize it as that, and skip over it. This is an informal setting with casual conversations, every little quote and detail doesn't need to be fact-checked to your satisfaction.

1 hour ago, ColeBOzbourne said:

Why not just take everything you read on internet forums with a giant grain of salt? After a few sentences of 'AI Slop', you should be able to recognize it as that, and skip over it. This is an informal setting with casual conversations, every little quote and detail doesn't need to be fact-checked to your satisfaction.

AI Slop not permitted. AN site rule 39a: Posts should be original, on-topic, and written in your own voice. This is a discussion forum—not an AI content dump—so keep contributions natural and personal. AI tools can be used for reference or to support facts, but your writing should reflect your own understanding and perspective. This is especially important for opening posts, which should clearly come from a human point of view and invite genuine discussion.

On 6/12/2026 at 7:10 AM, FlorC said:

No attribution should not always be required because

a lot of sources are not allowed on AN.

The reason some sources aren't allowed on AN is because they are fake, fraudulent or heavily biased, Nothing is gained by allowing factually incorrect sources.

One solution is to use screenshots of AI-generated content. The attribution is automatic and unmistakable.

Edited June 14Jun 14 by Evil Penevil

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

The reason some sources aren't allowed on AN is because they are fake, fraudulent or heavily biased, Nothing is gained by allowing factually incorrect sources.

One solution is to use screenshots of AI-generated content. The attribution is automatic and unmistakable.

One man's fake news is another man's true news.

I certainly don't trust AN's judgement on what is true or not.

And who shall be the fact-checker?

4 hours ago, FlorC said:

One man's fake news is another man's true news.

I certainly don't trust AN's judgement on what is true or not.

This discussion could get very philosophical, as it touches on the sticky questions of objective reality and absolute truth. I would say there is an objective standard by which news can be judged, but of course I realize opinions differ as to what exactly this standard should be.

The issue for AN is to identify credible news sources which follow an objective standard. From what I've seen, the Mods and Admin do a decent job in this respect. They allow members to express a very wide range of opinion, but don't allow obviously fake stuff and subjective interpretations to be presented as fact.

That's how it should be.

3 hours ago, khunPer said:

And who shall be the fact-checker?

That job falls to all of us, although it is the Mods and Admin who have the authority to act on the board's behalf. Fake news as well as inadvertent factual errors should be commented on in replies to threads and in the worst cases that break board rules, reported to the Mods.

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

That job falls to all of us, although it is the Mods and Admin who have the authority to act on the board's behalf.

That is how AN already is today.

No.

I think everyone should treat all social media information the way we do when we are talking to people sitting around a table in a bar, drinking beer. Some of what they say may be interesting, and I might respond and exchange comments, but when I leave the bar, I would never count on anything said in there, including what I said, to be absolutely true.

I view this entire forum as entertainment, not factual.

I vote no, in general. I thought this was an opinion sharing forum. Am I going to have to hire a fact checker for every time I post something?

I agree with some other commenters who think if people are going to use AI, then they should probably label it as such.

I have a third comment which I will detach from here, in case the mods find an issue with it.

Who is going to be the judge? Don’t the mods have enough to do already?

On 6/14/2026 at 2:38 AM, ColeBOzbourne said:

Why not just take everything you read on internet forums with a giant grain of salt? After a few sentences of 'AI Slop', you should be able to recognize it as that, and skip over it. This is an informal setting with casual conversations, every little quote and detail doesn't need to be fact-checked to your satisfaction.

Spot on!

I use the 'net all the time to gain access to information I need on a wide variety of subjects including legal, medical, technical etc.

Having gained that access, 3 words are critical (IMO) "Consider the source"

But to answer the OP more directly, I agree that any such sources should be identified, unless it's obviously a YouTube link or similar and if it's AI-generated, say so.