My vote would be a total ban. There are plenty of robots to engage with if that is what you want. I do sympathize with the site. I run a small website for my biz, fully static. I check the logs and literally thousands of attempts to hack the site. Static makes it easy, as they are all assuming cgi, php, etc, which mine uses none. Worse are the constant port scans(telnet, and all those other vulnerable ports) and even outright ddos's. The web has become a cesspool with tiny little islands of usefulness. There is no way we would permit people turning our doorknob 24x7 to see if the door was open, and yet this is the web.
That last post was a good laugh. Sure, how could AI ever get smart enough to outwit the geniuses who dabble in exotic power cables and ground boxes 
The 1st big kick in the nuts from AI is coming sooner than you think. How hard do you think it would be for AI to overcome all the security on your bank account and convince the bank they are you? Give a thought to how much it would it would take to do this, it's less than you might think at first.
The 1st big kick in the nuts from AI is coming sooner than you think. How hard do you think it would be for AI to overcome all the security on your bank account and convince the bank they are you? Give a thought to how much it would it would take to do this, it's less than you might think at first.
Since it seems "that last post" you're talking about is mine, please note that not more than a few days ago you more than once stood out on another thread for your uncivilized ways where the moderators had to intervene to cancel your childish insults aimed at a non-existent club.
So, I won't get dragged into a mediocre discussion with you, who by the way don't even seem to know what you're talking about AI.
An even bigger problem than what AI is, is what people think AI is.
So, I won't get dragged into a mediocre discussion with you, who by the way don't even seem to know what you're talking about AI.
An even bigger problem than what AI is, is what people think AI is.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
It’s scary when it’s hard to predict the consequences. Perhaps it might make things better. We aren’t doing a great job, as a species, that we can’t benefit from some change. Hopefully, we’ll use these new tools to make things better. Medicine for one, needs some real improvements around the world.
If people whose understanding of "the world" (including the forum) is "on the level of a parrot" are accepted in the community then they need to be addressed in the language they understand.
The only other option is to keep them out.
I was seeing a tremendous amount of AI generated posts with political slants, on some forums. It wasn’t uncommon to find more than one instance of almost verbatim posts appearing in a timeframe spreading the same misinformation. They appeared to move together to push down a relevant discussion and inject a scripted narrative.
AI makes errors on very technical subjects, and they are different than those mistakes made by organic brained beings. The thing is, AI cannot be reasoned with and will not admit the texts it has referenced are in conflict.
I would like the ability to block AI content.
Regarding errors in news etc, who has the time or inclination to fully check such things? So they just become urban legends and assumed true.
"I just want a warning before I see AI generated content."
Though this would be great, I doubt it will ever happen, too many vested interests. One only has to read about the "stolen honour" rife now. (A British chief of police for one county was sacked for such an offence, and I think is being prosecuted).
"I just want a warning before I see AI generated content."
Though this would be great, I doubt it will ever happen, too many vested interests. One only has to read about the "stolen honour" rife now. (A British chief of police for one county was sacked for such an offence, and I think is being prosecuted).
Last edited:
The AI companies are already trying to feed back old AI output into the training for new AI.
Pretty obvious how that's gonna turn out.
When I come to diyAudio I expect to be talking to a human at the other end. I enjoy those conversations and enjoy hearing people's independent thoughts on the subject, even if I don't always agree with them. If I wanted to have a conversation with a robot I would go to chatGPT and talk to it.
I'm not sure I would support an outright ban on AI-generated content, though. I would rather see the culture here promote individual thought and user-generated content. A simple response to AI posts along the lines of, "Do you have any independent thoughts on this topic?" would probably go a long way in most cases.
I think those who reach for AI to generate their forum posts should think long and hard about why they're posting here in the first place.
Tom
I'm not sure I would support an outright ban on AI-generated content, though. I would rather see the culture here promote individual thought and user-generated content. A simple response to AI posts along the lines of, "Do you have any independent thoughts on this topic?" would probably go a long way in most cases.
I think those who reach for AI to generate their forum posts should think long and hard about why they're posting here in the first place.
Tom
I'd concur. Short of that, perhaps someone could take the time to prompt AI, read the information and put that into their own words - but who's going to go through all that when ctrl-A, ctrl-C, crtl-V is so easy?
There's lots of buttons available in the editor. Perhaps one could be added to mark content as straight off the boat AI. Then, like the "ignore" function, someone who isnt interested in content from Mr AI can simply set that as a preference. There's a level of honesty needed for that to work however.
Regarding being able to participate in certain discussions only with the use of AI; is it that important to be able to do so? Myraid topics I dont touch, because I cant contribute and I know that. Who'd generate content artificially, just to get their name on the roster? Is there a system of "points" that has value somehow, that actually matters? Take my "upvote" on a well-engineered prompt!
Speaking of which, maybe only allow AI content if the prompt used is included, prior to the response.
As frustrating as I find such threads, I think unlabeled AI is worse. It's one thing to be unknowledgeable of how R, L and C can affect an audio circuit, but at least the posters are giving their honest (if misguided) thoughts, and hopefully some will learn more about electronics. Those quoting AI without attribution are intending to deceive, at least about the source of their words, and likely more.
Just in case anyone wonders what this has to do with forum problems: absolutely nothing, they were answers to the other thread about potential undesired consequences of AI in general (original question in post 21 of this thread).
Another thread has been merged with this one. Some posts were removed.
This thread is for the improvement of the forum through better understanding of the issue. Political posts will be removed and action taken as deemed appropriate.
Allen B.
When I started my thread I wasn’t thinking about AI generating posts but more about the way AI will develop on the long run.
Last edited by a moderator:
The following might seem OT, but it's not.
Currently I don't hear too often the fact that AI's carbon footprint is very high (I won't add a link because all you have to do is search and you'll find hundreds).
Another thing that isn't talked about is regulation and the laws that "should" regulate AI.
Recent news is that United Europe (hear, hear) has promulgated the first law in the world relating to AI, obliging anyone who publishes any material produced by AI to tag it in a way that is evident to everyone.
The thing that should be adequately commented on, but which cannot be commented on out of respect for the rules of the Forum, is that this law will come into force in 2 (two) years.
As a note of folklore I can only add that they are making (I believe on social media) fake videos produced by AI (therefore authentic AI ) with well-known TV and entertainment personalities who invite the gullible to sign up for financial plans relating to their savings.
But the law will come into force in 2 years...
This is the state of the art of mankind currently.
However, for what it worth, I've always carefully avoided reading even just two lines of what AI produces, so my vote is also to definitively ban it from the Forum, or "obliging anyone who publishes any material produced by AI to tag it in a way that is evident to everyone."
I prefer human errors, to those of an abstract entity, at least human errors can be attributed to someone who, who knows, one day might even learn something from their mistakes.
AI on the other hand, in my opinion, can only become more perverse from its (frequent) error, because it was not created to help mankind.
Currently I don't hear too often the fact that AI's carbon footprint is very high (I won't add a link because all you have to do is search and you'll find hundreds).
Another thing that isn't talked about is regulation and the laws that "should" regulate AI.
Recent news is that United Europe (hear, hear) has promulgated the first law in the world relating to AI, obliging anyone who publishes any material produced by AI to tag it in a way that is evident to everyone.
The thing that should be adequately commented on, but which cannot be commented on out of respect for the rules of the Forum, is that this law will come into force in 2 (two) years.
As a note of folklore I can only add that they are making (I believe on social media) fake videos produced by AI (therefore authentic AI
) with well-known TV and entertainment personalities who invite the gullible to sign up for financial plans relating to their savings.But the law will come into force in 2 years...
This is the state of the art of mankind currently.
However, for what it worth, I've always carefully avoided reading even just two lines of what AI produces, so my vote is also to definitively ban it from the Forum, or "obliging anyone who publishes any material produced by AI to tag it in a way that is evident to everyone."
I prefer human errors, to those of an abstract entity, at least human errors can be attributed to someone who, who knows, one day might even learn something from their mistakes.
AI on the other hand, in my opinion, can only become more perverse from its (frequent) error, because it was not created to help mankind.