Should a member be allowed to make a post which is AI generated or AI mixed without disclosing such use of AI as part of the post?

[treitz3]

A.I. can be asked to give a convincing argument, one way or the other, truth doesn’t come into it. Perhaps AI detectors work the same way?

AI has no ethics, it will lie without hesitation to complete a task. Some time back I read about some lawyers being struck off because they relied upon AI. Apparently, they were working in a large law firm, tasked with making a case in favour of a client, to cite case law, etc., the lawyers asked AI to do the work for them. AI produced the argument complete with citations of applicable case law. The lawyers didn’t check the work, but submitted it as is in court. The judge questioned the cited case law and found it fictitious, AI made it all up.

The output is only as good as the input.....and it depends on who's doing the input as well. Think Wikipedia.

We (The WBF) are a forum of humans. If I wanted to join a forum of all Artificial Intelligence, I would. The last thing I would want to do is have to read a thread where two A.I. answers are competing with each other. The question asked (and how it is asked)....well, never mind. Not gonna get into it. I voted an enthusiastic and resounding, NO.

I didn't join this forum to share and learn information about our hobby, by reading input from a computer's thoughts.

In a world that already is at an all time low, when it comes to human interaction. Inviting posts by A.I. only further exacerbates this.

FWIW.

Tom

 

[Rensselaer]

The output is only as good as the input.....and it depends on who's doing the input as well. Think Wikipedia.

We (The WBF) are a forum of humans. If I wanted to join a forum of all Artificial Intelligence, I would. The last thing I would want to do is have to read a thread where two A.I. answers are competing with each other. The question asked (and how it is asked)....well, never mind. Not gonna get into it. I voted an enthusiastic and resounding, NO.

I didn't join this forum to share and learn information about our hobby, by reading input from a computer's thoughts.

In a world that already is at an all time low, when it comes to human interaction. Inviting posts by A.I. only further exacerbates this.

FWIW.

Tom

It is not “computer thoughts” that AI provides, it scours the internet (including chat groups) for any relevant entries (no fact checks) and constructs what you ask for from such.

 

[exupgh12]

I wouldn't trust a computer with preventing nuclear war either.

like we can trust humans for that.....

 

[Al M.]

like we can trust humans for that.....

No, we can't. But more than computers, for sure.

No computer would have done what this man did:

The Soviet soldier who saved the world: how did Stanislav Petrov prevent nuclear Armageddon?

Explore the story of Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet officer who prevented a potential nuclear catastrophe during the height of the Cold War…

www.historyextra.com

 

[treitz3]

It is not “computer thoughts” that AI provides, it scours the internet (including chat groups) for any relevant entries (no fact checks) and constructs what you ask for from such.

We may not agree on this then, because to me, that's exactly what a "computer's thoughts" are.

If one had a question, would it not be easier to just ask A.I. directly? No need to muck up this forum with content from A.I....(IMO)

Then, there is the question/legality of A.I. results taken from copyrighted material...

Tom

 

[Steve williams]

As an update to the poll, members are reaching out to me who haven't voted and are asking me to open the poll so that members can see the results. I have purposely kept the poll blinded (results cannot be seen until member votes), the poll is anonymous (names are not seen to who voted or how they voted)....and one's vote cannot be changed ,,so to keep this poll impartial I would encourage members to vote. It is all anonymous and no one knows results until they vote

 

[exupgh12]

No, we can't. But more than computers, for sure.

No computer would have done what this man did:

The Soviet soldier who saved the world: how did Stanislav Petrov prevent nuclear Armageddon?

Explore the story of Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet officer who prevented a potential nuclear catastrophe during the height of the Cold War…

www.historyextra.com

I am familiar with that story. While human judgment remains irreplaceable in high-stakes scenarios involving complex technological systems, contemporary AI and computer technologies are fundamentally different from those of the 1980s.

As someone from a country where numerous life-critical decisions are now entrusted to AI, we have witnessed its efficacy. Modern AI systems can often make decisions more reliably and efficiently than human operators, particularly in scenarios requiring rapid, data-driven analysis and response.

 

[Al M.]

I am familiar with that story. While human judgment remains irreplaceable in high-stakes scenarios involving complex technological systems, contemporary AI and computer technologies are fundamentally different from those of the 1980s.

As someone from a country where numerous life-critical decisions are now entrusted to AI, we have witnessed its efficacy. Modern AI systems can often make decisions more reliably and efficiently than human operators, particularly in scenarios requiring rapid, data-driven analysis and response.

Sure, already the life-critical decision on how to precisely fire the 16 trusters on the lunar module of Apollo 8 in order to land it in an almost perfect elliptical orbit around the moon was also done by a computer. A human astronaut could not have carried out an operation of such complexity.

That was December 1968, and the computer was less powerful than today's most basic cell phones.

Yet as with most AI decisions that was a purely mechanical task. As you say, human judgment remains irreplaceable in high-stakes scenarios.

 

[italia]

In my quick research and as far as I can find, there are few legal requirements for even doctors and lawyers to disclose the use of AI in the performance of their work involving you as the patient/ client. Though, it appears the GDPRs may evolve in that direction before most jusridictions.

I asked the Gemini AI tool to create a disclaimer for me to disclose that my written response may include utilization of tools such as AI. It came up with several examples of varying levels of projected transparency. This one was labeled by Gemini as the most 'detailed and transparent' of the examples:
"In crafting my responses, I may leverage AI tools for tasks such as generating text, brainstorming ideas, and improving grammar and style. I am committed to ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the information provided, and I carefully review and edit all AI-generated content. However, it's important to be aware of the potential influence of AI in the writing process."

I foresee a time when a political faction pursues that disclosure of the use of AI become law, and succeeds. At that point we will all post a statement in our profile such as the one above. And at that point, it will be as clear as mud as to whether or not someone utilized AI in crafting a post, yet some will have a 'feel-good' sensation that they instigated the mandatory act of disclosure

 

[DaveC]

Sure, already the life-critical decision on how to precisely fire the 16 trusters on the lunar module of Apollo 8 in order to land it in an almost perfect elliptical orbit around the moon was also done by a computer. A human astronaut could not have carried out an operation of such complexity.

That was December 1968, and the computer was less powerful than today's most basic cell phones.

Yet as with most AI decisions that was a purely mechanical task. As you say, human judgment remains irreplaceable in high-stakes scenarios.

Well, this isn't a high stakes situation, a detector would simply alert mods, and at least at this point, it's very easy to recognize AI writing so you have a human backup. All it does is make moderating a rule a little easier, the detector isn't likely, I hope, to auto-ban people so it doesn't really matter if the accuracy isn't perfect.

 

[exupgh12]

Sure, already the life-critical decision on how to precisely fire the 16 trusters on the lunar module of Apollo 8 in order to land it in an almost perfect elliptical orbit around the moon was also done by a computer. A human astronaut could not have carried out an operation of such complexity.

That was December 1968, and the computer was less powerful than today's most basic cell phones.

Yet as with most AI decisions that was a purely mechanical task. As you say, human judgment remains irreplaceable in high-stakes scenarios.

The Iron Dome's Tamir missiles exemplify advanced AI and computational decision-making. With only 10 seconds to calculate interception trajectories, these systems demonstrate sophisticated real-time threat assessment and response capabilities.

Similarly, state security authorities now use predictive AI to anticipate and preempt terrorist group developments, often preventing incidents before they become public knowledge.

In aviation, computer systems increasingly handle critical pilot decisions across multiple aircraft types, including commercial airliners like Airbus and Boeing, as well as advanced fighter jets such as the F-35 and F-22. These systems process complex data and make split-second decisions that were once exclusively human domain.

These examples illustrate how AI and computational technologies have transformed decision-making in defense, security, and transportation, enabling faster, more precise responses in high-stakes scenarios.

 

[DaveC]

In my quick research and as far as I can find, there are few legal requirements for even doctors and lawyers to disclose the use of AI in the performance of their work involving you as the patient/ client. Though, it appears the GDPRs may evolve in that direction before most jusridictions.

I asked the Gemini AI tool to create a disclaimer for me to disclose that my written response may include utilization of tools such as AI. It came up with several examples of varying levels of projected transparency. This one was labeled by Gemini as the most 'detailed and transparent' of the examples:
"In crafting my responses, I may leverage AI tools for tasks such as generating text, brainstorming ideas, and improving grammar and style. I am committed to ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the information provided, and I carefully review and edit all AI-generated content. However, it's important to be aware of the potential influence of AI in the writing process."

I foresee a time when a political faction pursues that disclosure of the use of AI become law, and succeeds. At that point we will all post a statement in our profile such as the one above. And at that point, it will be as clear as mud as to whether or not someone utilized AI in crafting a post, yet some will have a 'feel-good' sensation that they instigated the mandatory act of disclosure

That is a great reason to simply not allow any AI use whatsoever when posting on a forum.

 

[italia]

That is a great reason to simply not allow any AI use whatsoever when posting on a forum.

Or a great reason to realize that AI will become so intertwined in EVERY aspect of human civilization that it's futile to think that a rule will make any difference

 

[Al M.]

The Iron Dome's Tamir missiles exemplify advanced AI and computational decision-making. With only 10 seconds to calculate interception trajectories, these systems demonstrate sophisticated real-time threat assessment and response capabilities.

[...]

In aviation, computer systems increasingly handle critical pilot decisions across multiple aircraft types, including commercial airliners like Airbus and Boeing, as well as advanced fighter jets such as the F-35 and F-22. These systems process complex data and make split-second decisions that were once exclusively human domain.

Again, these are purely mechanical decisions. More sophisticated than the firing of the 16 trusters on the lunar module in 1968, for sure, but basically of the same nature.

Similarly, state security authorities now use predictive AI to anticipate and preempt terrorist group developments, often preventing incidents before they become public knowledge.

That's a bit different.

 

[microstrip]

I never heard of AI detector programs until today.

I ran a recent long post through three AI detector apps. Two of the apps said 100% AI. The third AI detector app said 55% chance of being AI.

I don't think these AI detector programs are yet accurate enough or fool-proof enough to rely upon them.

Most people have a wrong idea about the real capabilities of an intelligent use of AI - AI can be extremely useful if we are more intelligent than it.

The academic community has been aware of this subject since its inception, worked a lot on it, and the best universities have created guidelines to its use. I quote from the MIT guidelines:

• We will allow the use of generative AI tools in limited circumstances. There are multiple ways in which MIT communicators use generative AI to assist in the early stages of writing or production, including for generating ideas, researching background information, creating outlines, or analyzing data. AI chatbots may also help with copyediting, cutting text, or drafting headlines, image captions, alt-text, meta descriptions, and social media posts.
  
  As these uses generally fall into the categories of preparation and summarization, we will allow the publication of content on IOC channels that was prepared with help from generative AI in these ways. Communicators across MIT are already responsible for fact-checking and vetting their work to ensure its accuracy before submitting it to IOC platforms, and this will continue.
• 
  
• Quoted from https://news.mit.edu/guidelines-generative-ai

IMO AI is an extremely useful tool - I use it carry tasks such as getting information or locating sources. I always cross check information - I know the AI bot can says"yes, surely" and if I ask it again another way it says "sorry, no I was mistaken" ...

Properly used AI can increase our efficiency - it is an excellent slave.
Unfortunately most people who are not aware of its capabilities and choose to refuse it risk being surpassed - and there is a big risk it will increase inequality and compromise free will. IMHO, YMMV.

 

[microstrip]

That is a great reason to simply not allow any AI use whatsoever when posting on a forum.

As I stated in my previous post it is not a black and white affair.

Besides, in a forum such as WBF, who has the authority and responsibility to check posts?

 

[DaveC]

Or a great reason to realize that AI will become so intertwined in EVERY aspect of human civilization that it's futile to think that a rule will make any difference

For me, that would be the end of my participation in forums. I think we need to have some AI-free websites. Not knowing if you're talking to an AI or a real person is an issue for most people.

AI is already incorporated into web searches, but there's a massive difference between using it for research, solving math problems, etc. vs using it to write entire posts with the intent to deceive others into believing it was written by the human who posted it.

As I stated in my previous post it is not a black and white affair.

Besides, in a forum such as WBF, who has the authority and responsibility to check posts?

Let's be real here... the issue is deceiving others. It is in academia, it is here too. And just like guidelines for using AI, academia has already developed ways to enforce their own rules. If you want a good answer to that question, ask an expert on enforcing these rules. I can only state my opinion for supporting a rule that limits AI.

 

[treitz3]

AI is already incorporated into web searches, but there's a massive difference between using it for research, solving math problems, etc. vs using it to write entire posts with the intent to deceive others into believing it was written by the human who posted it.

^^^ This. ^^^

Tom

 

[treitz3]

Tom

 

[microstrip]

(...) Let's be real here... the issue is deceiving others. It is in academia, it is here too. And just like guidelines for using AI, academia has already developed ways to enforce their own rules. If you want a good answer to that question, ask an expert on enforcing these rules. I can only state my opinion for supporting a rule that limits AI.

Academia has resources that are not available to audio forums. I do not see this forum owners paying for such experts work. IMO only the active participation of members in dialogues can scrutinize such activity.

It seems clear for me that forums will survive to AI only if the participant activity and enthusiasm can overcome AI posts - I think WBF is well prepared for it. Ron easily spot the same post I have checked a few days ago ...