At least some of you have now acknowledged the issue. How can one be accused of plagiarising oneself?
Surly at least here, the measure of “quality” is the number of responses garnered? A good thread is one that brings about an extended and critical discussion.
Of course authorship is relevant, but it is not primary.
Again, I’d be much happier to see the use of AI openly acknowledged rather than banned and so swept under the rug; prohibition results in concealment.
But of course I acknowledge the difficulties this presents for our mods.
Whether or not he could do it without AI, I will go back to my point about the reduction of philosophy to a single variable. If there were a website where the only aim was to produce music that is as popular as possible, then that website would not restrict AI use. If someone wants to listen to the most popular music possible, and they do not care about anything else, then they will not care whether the music comes from AI. That doesn’t map to TPF because philosophy doesn’t work that way.
They are being sued because they left the prompt blank? Why?
Note that if philosophy is only about “quality of argument,” and AI produces the highest quality arguments, then there is no problem with blank prompts.
You make a very important point. This is the point I was at pains to make on the previous forum. The guidelines (and the recent addendum) regarding AI use on TPF literally say nothing at all about plagiarism.
You basically want people to be able to copy and paste “polished” revisions and output by AI provided it is the result of their own 100% personally written input. The powers that be do not desire this, possibly for reasons I believe I’ve summarized quite eloquently.
We see it. We just don’t see the value you seem to see in allowing it.
I dont understand why you keep saying there’s a “ban on using AI”, unless there is no difference in your mind between using AI and copy-pasting AI output to present as your own writing. The latter is what is banned, but it’s just one way among many of using the technology—one that’s particularly bad for discussion.
I haven’t access to Sam’s last post, of course. But if the rule is truly only against copy-pasting AI output as your own writing, then Sam’s thread should not have been closed under that rule.
And if the problem was in that last post, then that ought have been the part removed, rather than closing the whole thread.
I presume I am missing something. Sam was responding to @MCogito’s specific objections, using an original framing, mostly in the first person. Not hallmarks of AI use.
That thread appeared to be a worthy topic for the forum. Something still appears amiss.
It goes beyond grammar and spelling. Yet it is a useful contribution to the discussion, used by myself and by others.
Should I have hidden the fact that it was AI generated, and pretended it was my own research? I hope not. Should it simply not have been used? Then we are not to use AI for our own research here?
I’m not asking for you to fix or change anything here, so much as to at least acknowledge the ambiguity of the situation.
I don’t know how the guidelines could be any clearer. According to the rules your quoting of AI is contrary to forum policy. The second sentence is just more of your equivocation between AI research and AI post generation.
Agreed. Yet despite being against the guidelines, it was a significant contribution to the discussion, showing that it is unlikely that the button pressing would be 50/50.
Isn’t that at least a curiosity? Was my post a piece of AI research or a piece of post generation? Well, it was both.
AI statistics are useful. Until they’re not. This poster seems to offer insight as to why.
It’s a time saver, but at the expense of accuracy in many occasions. It was a useful post, no doubt. But sometimes AI is wrong. It’s in the disclaimer at the bottom of almost every instance of it.
It may have taken some time, but couldn’t you have just followed up with “please link the sources of statistics for the following information” and upon visiting the sources and verifying them yourself have simply typed something like:
“According to VerifiedSource.gov or VerifiedSource.edu 50% of people are blah blah blah”
It takes longer, but in ensures accuracy, which is fundamental to any high quality discussion. Do you not agree?
I had the references, listed by the AI, and would have made them available if someone had asked - no one did. Indeed, I used some of it in a later post.
So that’s the issue - I should not have made that post, according to the rules, yes? But it was salient.
No one has claimed that AI-generated posts are unable to contribute to discussions.
Judging from your approach to this topic in the past, as well as your history for disregarding AI-related rules, I will point back to my post here. Ultimately, a person who continually equivocates between AI research and AI-generated posts, or who continually tries to justify AI use by simply creating AI-generated posts and then engaging in post hoc defense of those posts, needs to simply learn to follow the rules. Unending rule-questioning is not a realistic option.
To be fair, on PC, when quoting literally any statement or sentence you get a menu that shows “Ask AI” right there by the “Quote” button. Which is pretty wild in contrast to the policy. It may certainly send mixed messages to newer or more inexperienced users. And most of the internet and the world, many jobs basically enforce use of AI. So. It’s probably important the staff and moderation have liberal tolerance to use of AI, as far as punishment is concerned, seeing as for many people it’s become second nature, unfortunately.
Still. This is an adult forum for adults who are intellectually inclined. The rules are quite clear. I have to agree with the perhaps harsh sentiment that there is little room for exception.
