The following was posted in the forum announcements

 

AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. IOW, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made

Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. 

Owing to the propensity for AI to fabricate citations, we strongly encourage links to citations be included as a best practice. Mods and experts might demand these if there are questions about their legitimacy. A fabricated citation is bad-faith posting.

Posters are responsible for any rules violations stemming from posting AI-generated content

 

___

 

We are happy to discuss the whys and wherefores, and consider modifications.

In addition, a reminder that accusing people of being bots, or using AI, is off-topic. You are, however, free to ask for clarification in any discussion, including links to any citations. Faking a cite is easy, but a valid link with one is a little harder to manage.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. 

Can I assume that AI content can be discussed in the Computer Science section as long as it is used in correct context?

Example:  A member wants do discuss the scientific reasons for choosing between competing AI-based prompting strategies: "In the linked peer reviewed paper the LLM version X was observed to provide an improvement of 3.6% in test Y when using AI generated prompts based to template Z, below is a table of examples." 

The context in the example is science related to LLM's rather than the application of scientific-looking output of an LLM. In this case discussing AI content may be appropriate outside of speculations section?

 

(English not my first language; so the answer may possibly be obvious)

Yes, AI can be discussed. But the arguments one makes in any discussion can’t be AI-generated. AI can’t be used as a source of information.

IOW, you can’t support an argument with anything that’s equivalent to “ChatGPT said <something>” 

On 4/19/2024 at 5:20 PM, swansont said:

We are happy to discuss the whys and wherefores, and consider modifications.

In addition, a reminder that accusing people of being bots, or using AI, is off-topic.

Bumping this. Posts making such accusations with be deposited in the trash can

FYSA, the AI policy has been added to the rules

On 4/19/2024 at 11:20 PM, swansont said:

Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity,

Since when human do so?

Neither human or AI are able to do so.

How do you verify the mass of the Earth by yourself without using 3rd party references? How do you verify the mass of the Sun by yourself without using 3rd party references? etc. etc. How many people verified G, e, or any other physical constants by themselves?

All modern science refers to previous references..

The number of independently conducted experiments by a person is microscopic/miniscule, and independently made discoveries is microscopic^nth..

 

You believe (just believe from papers, videos etc.) there is a country called Egypt, or whatever, until you get there by plane..

 

Just now, Sensei said:

How many people verified G, e, or any other physical constants by themselves?

Actually that is why we were forced to do so many repeat experiments at school and university.

I remember measuring  g, e/m, the mechanical equivalent of heat, the spectroscopic signature of many organic compounds,  and many many others.

45 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Since when human do so?

Neither human or AI are able to do so.

How do you verify the mass of the Earth by yourself without using 3rd party references? How do you verify the mass of the Sun by yourself without using 3rd party references? etc. etc. How many people verified G, e, or any other physical constants by themselves?

Really? People verify their information all the time in our threads. Did anyone say that it has to be personally verified?

The point is that AI is known to fabricate information, rather than using reliable third-party references.

A short time ago I wanted to know what the orbital velocity would be at the surface of the sun (to point out an absurdity of some claim). I figured someone had done the calculation, so I Googled it. The AI summary said it couldn’t be calculated. We don’t need such nonsense introduced into scientific discussions.

I think I will stick with the chatbots and forgo this forum.

4 hours ago, rufus mosley said:

I think I will stick with the chatbots and forgo this forum.

That’s both your prerogative and your loss.

Ah, this answers my question in another thread.  Apparently Rufus mistakenly thought I had downvoted him, and conferred a revenge DV.  TBH, I hadn't really paid any attention to his posts or formed any opinion on them.  Perhaps best to find out where DVs originate before accusing people, hm?  

I often use AI to rephrase my work, as it corrects grammatical mistakes and usually flows better. I have to check it carefully as it can sometimes change the meaning when elucidating new ideas. Can I assume that this does not violate the rules?

On 2/3/2025 at 9:58 PM, TheVat said:

Ah, this answers my question in another thread.  Apparently Rufus mistakenly thought I had downvoted him, and conferred a revenge DV.  TBH, I hadn't really paid any attention to his posts or formed any opinion on them.  Perhaps best to find out where DVs originate before accusing people, hm?  

I hate down voting, I have more DV's than people who say "We need big burly spouses"

10 hours ago, Rincewind said:

Can I assume that this does not violate the rules?

You should speak with your own voice, even if it's supplemented by a prompt to the LLM. You should not copy/paste words that are not your own. Maybe that helps?

1 minute ago, iNow said:

You should speak with your own voice, even if it's supplemented by a prompt to the LLM. You should not copy/paste words that are not your own. Maybe that helps?

I’m getting rather tired of accusations like this, and it’s happened from multiple people, to multiple members, that lack evidence.

From my vantage point, it seems no more than a vibe based on syntax that someone finds unusual. Nobody has made a case (that I can see) that weird syntax does not happen with e.g. people for whom English isn’t their first language but trying to write it, or are getting a translation. “You’re a bot” is like mocking someone for having an accent. “You talk funny” is a children's schoolyard taunt.

You (collectively) are rolling out the unwelcome wagon. You have the option of just not participating. Please choose that option.

If you have actual evidence of LLM use, the post should be reported along with that evidence. There’s no acceptable option that includes accusing someone in a thread.

I can’t help but feel I’ve been misinterpreted above.

The poster explicitly said they use LLMs to help them when posting. They then asked if that was breaking the rules.

My response? No. It’s fine to use those tools for research and better formulating posts, but the posts themselves should be written by you… “in your own voice.”

It was genuine guidance, not an accusation.

Yes, I am sometimes damned sure we’re dealing with bots or pure unedited LLM outputs pasted in scattershot fashion, no denial there. Guilty as charged.

That’s NOT what was happening in my post 49 minutes ago, though.

With respect, you’ve made a mistake my good man. You’ve misinterpreted my intent and my message. That’s your right and it happens. No biggie. Just clarifying my own point without aggression or attitude.

On 5/2/2025 at 6:17 PM, iNow said:

I can’t help but feel I’ve been misinterpreted above.

Just revisited this thread on another matter and yes, it’s obvious that I misread/misinterpreted something (and apparently missed the reply). My apologies.

All good. Thank you for coming back to it tho. Appreciated.