site banner
cjet79  1mo ago (text post)   Edited 1mo ago   1442 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.

Edit 1 Another point of general agreement among the mods was that talking about AI is fine. There would be no sort of topic ban of any kind. This rule discussion is more about how AI is used on themotte.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the onus is on the user to put their own time and effort into vetting and fact checking it

i am concerned that in practice it's going to fall heavily onto other users and the mods, rather than OP.

i think we can have ~all the ai you actually want with a policy of "no ai, except for short things where you used it so well/minimally that we can't tell and it's more like a spell checker than outsourcing"

I assume you want to use the caveats that it can be used for research purposes or thinking through things, just not copy-pasting text?

If you mean behind the scenes, sure*. If you mean "and then quote its facts/figures," no. I consider "AI says $STATISTIC" to be at most twice as accurate and at least twice as irritating as "my ballpark guess is", while being significantly dishonest. It's just forcing others to do your work for you.

*: Even researching is on shaky ground. "Question -> AI -> paraphrase answer" is marginally better than piping AI into a textbox. "Question -> AI -> check original sources -> synthesize your own argument" can be done well. I personally don't find it more useful than "Question -> search results -> check original sources if those weren't already -> synthesize your own argument", but concede that I am a luddite. (muh vimmmmm)

I agree with you here. There's an unfortunate amount of inherent haziness in trying to adjudicate using the Motte's rules, and the effort requirements are quite often the most litigated.

If someone is using an AI in a more discreet manner, while I can't I outright approve of them doing so, if I can't prove it, well...

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