Most people do not read the article link that’s posted. So I put an AI summary of the link as a comment, but as a spoiler so if you don’t want to engage with it you don’t have to and also the full article so people can more accessibly read the article. Also as a spoiler so it doesn’t take up a full page of a comment. It got removed by a mod as AI slop.
I could use AI on a headline and you would never know the difference. I could just say it’s my own summary also probably wouldn’t know the difference. Punishing people for being transparent about using LLMs who are not forcing the reader to engage with them is a net positive and a good practice to teach. The opposite is people still use them and just pretend they aren’t.
It has less to do with me and more what can and will happen. People will say they wrote it when they indeed did not.
I think having set boundaries around AI is more helpful than tasking mods with what they believe is AI. I’ve seen people on here reply with AI generations and say it’s AI and don’t really have a problem with it and find it actually to be a good practice. I just think we should go a step further and actually put it behind a spoiler so people who don’t want to engage with it don’t have to.
Removing it entirely will just mean it’s gets posted without people saying it’s AI and without spoiler tags.
“Sometimes its hard to tell if something is AI therefore we should stop moderating AI entirely” is not the winning argument you think it is.
I noticed that you haven’t addressed any of the environmental concerns people have brought up in this thread. Putting everything else aside, doesn’t the effect on the climate bother you in the slightest? Don’t you feel that alone is a very compelling argument for refusing to engage with or promote it?
My point is that trying to block LLMs is playing a wack a mole. Acknowledging their presence and putting some guide rails seem to be a better way to go about it, but the community obviously disagrees with me and I’m fine with that. Not a big deal to me at all.
It’s not a very compelling argument. I can run an llm on my device as done for this summary. How much energy do people waste on erroneous things that is causing climate catastrophe.
Gamers used 34TWh of energy almost a decade ago. Probably way higher now. But yet we have a community for gamers on this site. Do they not care about the climate disaster they’re adding to every year? We could do this with almost anything and everything that uses electricity that people learn from or enjoy using.
the only way you can get away from this nonsense was to make a statement that the people in power were the same people who voted against this and they were not even elected to office in any form of government or anything other then a bunch that is a lie and you know what you’re doing to the right to be a good thing for the country is the one that has done it all you can say that you don’t have a problem and you don’t care what anyone thinks you have to do with the rest and i don’t care about it so i just don’t want you being upset or upset about anything else and you have no one to talk about that i just don’t care about your feelings i do not want it i just don’t like it i just wanted your opinions on this is what you do what i do not have any other than what i do what you do not care what people do not have a problem and that’s it is what you don’t want it doesn’t matter what i do i do whatever you do what you’re the one thing