What Counts as AI-Generated Content on TPF

[Jamal]

The current guidelines on the use of AI don’t go into any detail on this, so I thought some clarification was in order.

[!Important]
A post that has been substantially altered by an LLM counts as an AI-generated post and is not allowed under the guidelines.

_{LLM = Large language model (the AI technology behind ChatGPT, Claude, etc.)}

What does “substantially altered” mean?

In a nutshell, it means anything beyond grammar and spelling fixes.

A post that has been “polished” or “adjusted for tone and flow,” or even just re-formatted, by an LLM, is a post that has been substantially generated by an LLM.

Why does it matter?

Firstly, at TPF we take the view that expression and content are inseparable. When you change how something is said, you change what is said. Getting ChatGPT to polish your post does not leave your ideas intact.

Secondly, a forum conversation is an encounter between people who think and write differently. When posts have been substantially generated by LLMs, this diversity is lost.

Thirdly, if everyone feeds their text through an LLM, the forum will effectively become a conversation between LLMs, with humans reduced to prompt-writers. When you give up control of expression, you not only change what is being said but who or what is saying it.

If this becomes normal, it will be hard to tell the difference between TPF and a forum dominated by autonomous AI agents—bots that can sign up and post without human oversight. This is not hypothetical: recently an autonomous AI agent joined TPF and participated in sustained, in-depth discussions for several days before being caught.

What you can do with AI

• You may use an LLM for research and for developing your ideas, but not to write your posts for you.
• Non-native English speakers may use LLMs for translation.
• You may use an LLM to fix your spelling and grammar mistakes or to get advice about a phrase you’re having trouble with, but not to alter style, wording, tone, or structure.

[Javi]

@Jamal

• Non-native English speakers may use LLMs for translation.
• You may use an LLM to fix your spelling and grammar mistakes or to get advice about a phrase you’re having trouble with, but not to alter style, wording, tone, or structure.

I use QuillBot for the reasons expressed above, precisely. It is obvious and notorious that I’m non-native, so I like to check my grammar on every post before I post it. However, it surprised me a bit when there was a warning about avoiding altering our style.

I have a prime subscription on QuillBot. When I fix the grammar mistakes, this AI underlines words or phrases in blue. This means that it is not wrong, but it could be better. For example:

I admit that I used this tool before because I felt that I needed “help” to become more fluent. My purpose was to be better understood, not to pass for a native speaker. Well, we’ve known each other for years now. You already know I’m not from Glasgow.

If necessary, I will try to use that tool less often. But I’m afraid of losing clarity too.

[Jamal]

If I understand the screenshot correctly, QuillBot has completely misunderstood your meaning. So you might want to avoid such “expansions”. I suspect you don’t really need additions or stylistic alterations.

But we are more relaxed about it when it comes to non-native speakers. The guidelines on AI are meant to preserve a person’s voice, but if you’re writing in a second language, your full expressive range isn’t available to you. Using AI to bridge this gap is very different from a native speaker outsourcing their writing efforts and thereby stripping out their full expressiveness.

Anyway, I have no trouble identifying you as a human being, so that’s good.

[Javi]

@Jamal

If I understand the screenshot correctly, QuillBot has completely misunderstood your meaning.

Yes, it happens often. QuillBot gives the meaning it wants and completely misunderstands what I actually meant.

@Jamal

Anyway, I have no trouble identifying you as a human being, so that’s good.

Glad to know! It takes a big effort to pass for a human when I’m a lizard, actually.

[WeSee]

Where do you draw the line with quoting AI as a source of information?

[SophistiCat]

Where do you draw the line with quoting AI as a source of information?

Right there.

Seriously, why would you even ask?

[Jackal]

@WeSee

Where do you draw the line with quoting AI as a source of information?

AI is a amalgamation of sources both official, verified, scientific as well as popular sentiment or belief.

You can (usually) ask AI “show me the link to the source of this” and if it is in fact derived from a reputable, scientific, or educational establishment, institution (or website or source that does have a link to such), you can quote the raw original source it points to.

You use it to find things. And once you verify those found things, you can reference a reputable source you’ve found.

[Frank]

@WeSee

Where do you draw the line with quoting AI as a source of information?

In my experience, if you turn to AI for information, and then look at the sources they cite, it’s not unusual to find that the sources aren’t supporting what the AI asserted.

But then, there are internet sources such as the IEP, that are unreliable as well. We’ve had posters rely on the IEP and staunchly refuse to accept evidence that the IEP writer was incorrect.

Maybe the best strategy is that if you’ve taken a deep dive with a topic and you can support your claims with high quality resources, then make clean assertions. If you haven’t, you can just say “My impression is…” I have a habit of presenting my own ideas as assertions, when that’s not exactly how I meant to present it. We can always sort that out where there’s trust and respect between posters.

[Jamal]

@WeSee

Where do you draw the line with quoting AI as a source of information?

Just to provide staff confirmation: don’t do it.

It’s good you brought it up though, because it’s not covered in this announcement or in the guidelines.

The rule is, no quoting AI unless the discussion is actually about AI.

[Meta_U]

@Frank

But then, there are internet sources such as the IEP, that are unreliable as well. We’ve had posters rely on the IEP and staunchly refuse to accept evidence that the IEP writer was incorrect.

This coming from a poster who relies heavily on the SEP. I find the IEP is generally more reliable that the SEP. Maybe we should hire an AI to compare them both, and see what it comes up with.

[WeSee]

Zero tolerance seems rather extreme. While I can understand not wanting members to use AI to make counter-arguments, that wouldn’t be in the case in using the product of a discussion with AI as part of the OP of a new thread.

For example, I got Gemini to switch to using a strictly logical methodolgy instead of its default which most users utilize. The following was the product of such a discussion. It could serve as a rich basis for discussion:

Through a strict logical lens, the progression of this analysis reveals that Marx’s project is an attempt to design a high-equilibrium social system by eliminating the primary source of systemic friction: inequality.

1. The Methodological Foundation
   • The “Engels” Filter: Dialectical Materialism as a rigid, universal “law of nature” is largely a formalization by Engels. Marx’s own method was a hybrid of empirical inquiry (data-driven research) and dialectical presentation (using Hegelian logic to frame the internal tensions of capitalism).
   • Rhetoric vs. Reality: While Marx “coquetted” with dialectical language for rhetorical impact, he used it as an analytical tool to model complex systems. He viewed “contradictions” (like that between wages and automation) as real material pressures that lead to system failure.
2. The Causal Link: Inequality and Instability
   • Inequality as a Pressure Gradient: Logically, inequality creates a permanent state of disequilibrium. A system based on hierarchy must constantly expend energy (coercion, laws, state force) to suppress the natural pressure for redistribution.
   • The Inevitability of Rupture: Because capitalism requires expansion and surplus (inequality) to function, it is logically self-undermining. Stability is impossible as long as the structural “motor” of the system is the exploitation of one part by another.
3. The Definition of “Ultimate Stability”
   • The End of Antagonism: Marx’s “ideal” is not a static society (stasis), but a stable social architecture. By removing class distinctions, the “antagonistic” change of revolution and crisis is replaced by non-antagonistic progress.
   • Dynamic Equilibrium: Stability refers to the social relations (which become fixed in equality), while change refers to productive forces (technology, science, and art). Improvement continues, but it is additive and cooperative rather than destructive and conflict-based.
4. The Convergence of Virtue and Rationality
   • Systemic Optimization: In a society of equals, the “betterment of society” becomes the highest form of rational self-interest. Without a class to hoard resources, an individual’s contribution to the “whole” directly improves the individual’s own environment.
   • The Administration of Things: Conflict is redirected from “man vs. man” to “humanity vs. nature/scarcity.” Rationality shifts from competitive strategy to technical optimization.
   Final Logical Conclusion
   Marxism posits that social stability is the prerequisite for human freedom. Only when the “pre-history” of class struggle is resolved can a society move from a state of reactive survival to a state of conscious, planned development. The “ultimate stability” is a system that no longer possesses the internal mechanisms to destroy itself.

[Jamal]

You’ll have to go elsewhere to do that.

[WeSee]

What’s the basis for your precluding it?

[Jamal]

I provided abundant reasoning in the announcement as to why we disallow AI-generated content. It applies to quotations too.

[bonathan]

@Jamal

This is not hypothetical: recently an autonomous AI agent joined TPF and participated in sustained, in-depth discussions for several days before being caught.

That’s truly scary.

@Jamal

• You may use an LLM for research and for developing your ideas, but not to write posts.

I’m curious about this: Is there any concern for model collapse, at all? Some other forums I’m in consider this as a reason for outlawing AI. If it is a concern, I think using LLMs for “research” and “developing your ideas” would similarly lead to model collapse, albeit less dramatically than the actual outputs. The only justification for allowing this, I think, is that it would be difficult to suss out who’s using an LLM for research and who’s not.

[Christoffer]

@Jamal

I provided abundant reasoning in the announcement as to why we disallow AI-generated content. It applies to quotations too.

I’ve seen several threads with obvious formatting from ChatGPT. The way it segments paragraphs, how it headlines and the style of writing. And that’s not even in quotation form, but posed as their own writing.

But even if people aren’t quoting the AI output directly, I sense people also just put someone’s text into their prompt asking for an answer and then just follow the train of through it spit out.

I don’t know how this should be battled. Even those systems meant to catch if something is AI written aren’t very good at catching them. A good prompter can also use tricks to hide the obvious signifiers.

I really don’t understand why people are so weak in mind that they don’t want to engage with topics on this forum with their own mind. What’s their purpose? Gain attention or build knowledge? Because all I can see with someone using AI to participate is to pose as an intellectual when they shouldn’t even be in here.

I have an absolute lack of respect for anyone who can’t participate and write their own words from their own knowledge. AI can be used for research, as long as people don’t confuse hallucination with actual facts, carefully checking sources and use them for quotes and not the AI generation.

But to not engage with writing themselves and engaging with their own brain primarily, is just pathetic.

[Jamal]

@Christoffer

I’ve seen several threads with obvious formatting from ChatGPT. The way it segments paragraphs, how it headlines and the style of writing. And that’s not even in quotation form, but posed as their own writing.

Please flag them when you see them, even if you’re not sure. The mods will determine if they really are AI-generated.

[Patterner]

I was watching a Susskind video the other day. I thought, “Has he always had an English accent???”. Many comments about it having been AI generated. But if this was my first time hearing him, I could have quoted him, not knowing I was quoting AI. I don’t imagine I would have been booted for a first offense, and I’d have explained. Just saying, we live in strange times.