I can see your point, but I can also see that you provided no proof of your previous accusations.
Anyway, a mod would help with removing chatbots. Otherwise we would just hate this place and keep returning to it without changing anything... which is borderline insane, imo.
From a psychological standpoint, we just want to be heard... And a lot of us are banned on many places... That's why we return here, where there's no moderation, but also no point in sharing whatever... Just several upvotes that you get and feel heard in the least way possible... But still better than muted/banned/blocked.
So it would be better to fix this place instead of just bitch about it, wouldn't you agree?
We could get a community rule that AI content is prohibited and the mods reserve the right to judge that content appears to include AI generation. But offhand that seems very abusable and could lead to the censorship we all hate.
This comment isn't responsive to my point. If it's clear to the average person that an account is essentially AI content, then it's very easy to discipline on current rules. My point is that those admitted humans who regularly quote and lean on AI content might also be deleted by common consensus, as happens in other fora. Your comment fixates again on an allegation that I seek being liked and an allegation that Will is essentially AI (when your own links show many people agreeing he's not, as his writing was far ahead of AI skills when he first released it, and AI still hasn't caught up).
As for fairness, I affirm that because it's already a sidebar rule, Our goal is to create a fairer world. So a mod had better care to be fair!
It's about the motive of the moderator. You said "But offhand that seems very abusable and could lead to the censorship we all hate." - censorship is required when someone is breaking the rules and spamming nonsense, or hurtful content.
You say "we all hate", which is your motive. I answered on that. If you fear that you will be hated for censoring some users, then how can you be a fair mod, when shills and AI bots consume the forum?
Anyway, let's focus on your current points.
If it's clear to the average person that an account is essentially AI content, then it's very easy to discipline on current rules.
What if it's not clear? How can you differentiate between a normal user and AI content, when AI can mimic it perfectly? How can you be fair to real users then?
My point is that those admitted humans who regularly quote and lean on AI content might also be deleted by common consensus, as happens in other fora.
A person, who uses AI content, is not an AI chatbot. It depends on how AI content is used. Some use it to create a picture that better illustrates their point, that's not a reason for ban or mute, in my opinion.
Your comment fixates again on an allegation that I seek being liked and an allegation that Will is essentially AI (when your own links show many people agreeing he's not, as his writing was far ahead of AI skills when he first released it, and AI still hasn't caught up)
Wrong on both accounts. I asked a question that you interpreted as an allegation - that your own problem with interpretation.
Also, free-will-of-choice is not at all ahead of AI chatbots. You're referring to the commercial use of AI, which shows how little you actually know about the subject. Now, you can say that's an allegation.
free-will-of-choice is an example of an etymology chatbot, and its lack of any posts is a proof that the user's actions are not to contribute (it could've made a post about the most common etymology meanings and what conclusions it draws, at least). Furthermore, it has no personal opinion on topics, it only uses etymology to confuse users, and it worked for you.
That's why I allege that you're inept on the topic of ai chatbots and shills.
I can see your point, but I can also see that you provided no proof of your previous accusations.
Anyway, a mod would help with removing chatbots. Otherwise we would just hate this place and keep returning to it without changing anything... which is borderline insane, imo.
From a psychological standpoint, we just want to be heard... And a lot of us are banned on many places... That's why we return here, where there's no moderation, but also no point in sharing whatever... Just several upvotes that you get and feel heard in the least way possible... But still better than muted/banned/blocked.
So it would be better to fix this place instead of just bitch about it, wouldn't you agree?
Fair. 😉
We could get a community rule that AI content is prohibited and the mods reserve the right to judge that content appears to include AI generation. But offhand that seems very abusable and could lead to the censorship we all hate.
Do you care so much to be liked or fair?
If you have no clue how to win against AI chatbots, then this community is lost if you're a mod.
This comment isn't responsive to my point. If it's clear to the average person that an account is essentially AI content, then it's very easy to discipline on current rules. My point is that those admitted humans who regularly quote and lean on AI content might also be deleted by common consensus, as happens in other fora. Your comment fixates again on an allegation that I seek being liked and an allegation that Will is essentially AI (when your own links show many people agreeing he's not, as his writing was far ahead of AI skills when he first released it, and AI still hasn't caught up).
As for fairness, I affirm that because it's already a sidebar rule, Our goal is to create a fairer world. So a mod had better care to be fair!
It's about the motive of the moderator. You said "But offhand that seems very abusable and could lead to the censorship we all hate." - censorship is required when someone is breaking the rules and spamming nonsense, or hurtful content.
You say "we all hate", which is your motive. I answered on that. If you fear that you will be hated for censoring some users, then how can you be a fair mod, when shills and AI bots consume the forum?
Anyway, let's focus on your current points.
What if it's not clear? How can you differentiate between a normal user and AI content, when AI can mimic it perfectly? How can you be fair to real users then?
A person, who uses AI content, is not an AI chatbot. It depends on how AI content is used. Some use it to create a picture that better illustrates their point, that's not a reason for ban or mute, in my opinion.
Wrong on both accounts. I asked a question that you interpreted as an allegation - that your own problem with interpretation.
Also, free-will-of-choice is not at all ahead of AI chatbots. You're referring to the commercial use of AI, which shows how little you actually know about the subject. Now, you can say that's an allegation.
free-will-of-choice is an example of an etymology chatbot, and its lack of any posts is a proof that the user's actions are not to contribute (it could've made a post about the most common etymology meanings and what conclusions it draws, at least). Furthermore, it has no personal opinion on topics, it only uses etymology to confuse users, and it worked for you.
That's why I allege that you're inept on the topic of ai chatbots and shills.