@Jamal
I read your decision re:
Clarifying the Concepts of Knowledge - Metaphysics & Epistemology - The Philosophy Forum
Since most of it is AI-generated, I’m closing this topic.
I can’t say I’m surprised but what made you suspect?
Or how do you know when posts are AI generated?
How sure are you?
Oh, I see the thread has now re-opened. What happened to change your mind?
While I cannot explain another person’s individual reasoning(s), I have read the past (2) discussions removed due to suspected use of AI.
It does kind of seem that way. I notice, when rereading my own posts, they do as well. I think that fault lies in the fact that some of us are meticulous, unreasonably polite and succinct, and overall just obsequious “people pleasers” who like to follow trends or rather “speak one’s language” as far as clarity and conciseness is concerned as far as relevant discussions go.
Remember, AI, allegedly, is actually modeled after the (alleged) physical, neurological framework of the actual human mind. It learns the way we learn, at least, in some ways. So, there will be similarities between the two.
We all have a “style” or preferred manner of speaking, but most, at least I, consider this an elevated intellectual platform where we, as a former manager under my watch would say “leave our problems (or in this case, irrelevant opinions) at the door” before entering the professional workspace. So, much like AI, we use concise and intelligent (if not robotic) talking points and phrases to express and convey our relevant argument and opinions. That’s what I think, at least.
Edit: Think of it like an accent. You may not know you have one, you might not have had one at first, but with enough exposure, it can become who or what people identify or associate you with or as. “You are who you hang around” comes to mind. You’re raised by (constantly exposed to) a sophisticated British lord, you may end up talking like one. Same goes for a potty mouthed biker. We are impressionable beings. That much is for true.
I understand that certain patterns of speech and argumentation are often repeated in separate texts written by the author.
If the author is prolific in a specialised area, then this could be a problem regarding detection as potential AI?
I don’t yet know how it was opened again. I certainly haven’t changed my mind.
Ah, it is now closed for good 
How do you know when something is AI generated?
Asking about trade secrets?
A combination of experience, published guides, and online tools.
Interesting. Given Sam’s reasoning for continual use of AI for editing, does this mean that all of his threads will be re-assessed?
I won’t be deleting any existing posts, as that would be too destructive.
Indeed. But the issue of using AI for editing remains. It is allowed but there seems to be a limit.
What is that? Where is the boundary line?
What kind of difference does it make to someone’s philosophical ‘authority’ or acceptability?
It’s detailed in the announcement:
Ah, yes. I read the Guidelines before but I forgot!
So…
Sam’s substantial shining did not brighten!
My ideas were intact. All you have to do is read my posts going back a few years. Some of my ideas changed or were added to, but essentially they’re my ideas with refinements.
AI is making improvements in science, medicine, mathematics and we don’t want to use it to improve philosophy? I don’t understand. As long as your up front about it, why not? There’s no doubt that AI is good at collaboration.
I mentioned it 3 or 4 times to people that I was using AI for editing and clarity. I never denied that I was using AI.
If the ideas aren’t coming from someone, then they should simply say the ideas were generated by AI. What counts are the arguments, it shouldn’t matter if it’s coming from a person or it’s generated by AI.
I could understand if we were talking about high school students who are trying to learn to write. However, in a philosophy forum we should be concerned with which ideas hold up under scrutiny. I don’t care if the idea came from Santa Claus, if it’s good, then it’s good.
Your understanding of philosophy and discussion is fundamentally in error. Read the announcement again if you want answers to your questions. If you continue to post AI-generated text, it will be deleted and you will be suspended.
My understanding of philosophy is fundamentally in error, what a bunch of bull.
You can collaborate with it privately or use it for research. Just write your own posts here in accordance with the clarified guidance, which is clear and fair.
That’s fine, I won’t say any more.
We don’t hallucinate 48% of our statements (link)
I rewrote a section of the last post that was deleted in my Clarity of Concepts thread, and then I ran it through two separate AI detectors. One said it was 80% AI, and the other said it was 30% AI. Now I’m a bit paranoid.
I was going to continue the discussion, but in a new thread.