site banner
cjet79  7hr ago (text post)   250 thread views

Rule Change Discussion: AI produced content

There has been some recent usage of AI that has garnered a lot of controversy

There were multiple different highlighted moderator responses where we weighed in with different opinions

The mods have been discussing this in our internal chat. We've landed on some shared ideas, but there are also some differences left to iron out. We'd like to open up the discussion to everyone to make sure we are in line with general sentiments. Please keep this discussion civil.

Some shared thoughts among the mods:

  1. No retroactive punishments. The users linked above that used AI will not have any form of mod sanctions. We didn't have a rule, so they didn't break it. And I thought in all cases it was good that they were honest and up front about the AI usage. Do not personally attack them, follow the normal rules of courtesy.
  2. AI generated content should be labelled as such.
  3. The user posting AI generated content is responsible for that content.
  4. AI generated content seems ripe for different types of abuse and we are likely to be overly sensitive to such abuses.

The areas of disagreement among the mods:

  1. How AI generated content can be displayed. (off site links only, or quoted just like any other speaker)
  2. What AI usage implies for the conversation.
  3. Whether a specific rule change is needed to make our new understanding clear.
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'd be the person you're looking for.

I think AI is a useful tool, and has some utility in discourse, the most pertinent example that comes to mind being fact-checking lengthy comments (though I still expect people to read them).

I'm fine with short excerpts being quoted. I am on the fence for anything longer, and entirely AI generated commenting or posting without human addition is beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.

My stance is that AI use is presumed to be low effort by default, the onus is on the user to put their own time and effort into vetting and fact checking it, and only quoting from it when necessary. I ask that longer pieces of prose be linked off-site, pastebin would be a good option.

While I can tolerate people using AI to engage with me, I can clearly see, like the other mods, that it's a contentious topic, and it annoys people reflexively, with some immediately using AI back as a gotcha, or refusing to engage with the text on its own merits. I'm not going to go "am I out of touch, no it's the users who are wrong" here, the Motte relies on consensus both in its moderation team, and in its user base. If people who would otherwise be happy and productive users check out or disengage, then I am happy to have draconian restrictions for the sake of maintaining the status quo.

People come here to talk to humans. They perceive AI text to be a failure in that regard (even I at least want a human in the loop, or I'd talk to Claude). If this requires AI to be discouraged, that's fine. I'm for it, though I would be slightly unhappy with a categorical ban. If that's the way things turn out, this not a hill I care to die on, especially when some users clearly would be happy to take advantage of our forbearance.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats