General Discussion

carpetbagger

(5,420 posts)

24. We need to push back against AI, but with a caveat...

Fri Dec 5, 2025, 12:10 AM

Dec 5

I've been on the MIRT for several terms. I feel like it's so widespread and insidious that I feel like if we treat AI alerts like the others (e.g. posting newsmax, slamming a democratic candidate *during a partisan campaign*, callout and other chronic trolls/dupes, bigotry), it'll (1) chase away legit DU types and (2) overwork MIRT and jurors.

Yes, we need to push back, and a prohibition on AI here is a proper step towards creating a true and free underground community. I'd recommend (1) decide, then (2) gradually educate and gently remind, (3) create an alert which will flag the post but not the poster or hide the post if there's a weak majority (2 out of 3?) of jurors, and eventually (4) an alert that will hide, but will separately count against the poster so that only the most egregious and recalcitrant DUers run into problems.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should AI-created content in posts be alerted on ? UPDATED: for ethical consistency [View all] eppur_se_muova Dec 3 OP

Not alerted - but somehow clearly identified - maybe with a color identifier as with videos, etc? NewHendoLib Dec 3 #1

changed my vote from yes... ret5hd Dec 3 #6

I agree, identification is better than alerting synni Dec 5 #31

Based on WHAT?? It is in no way a violation of site rules. Jack Valentino Dec 3 #2

But it should be. paleotn Dec 3 #4

NO. Jack Valentino Dec 3 #5

That's it! Just so no to fakes. paleotn Dec 3 #7

It's unreliable. One expert after another has said that chatbots are built in such a way that they tell you what you eppur_se_muova Dec 4 #18

Alerted on for what? Renew Deal Dec 3 #3

Why not? 3825-87867 Dec 3 #8

I think a better question is whether AI posts should be a violation of the TOS. Scrivener7 Dec 3 #9

I voted yes, but agree with u berniesandersmittens Dec 3 #10

Yes, definitely. Scrivener7 Dec 3 #11

Its a context thing. Eventually the AI bubble will burst but... FascismIsDeath Dec 3 #12

Definitely no womanofthehills Dec 3 #13

That information can be found easily via Google or other search engines and does NOT require highplainsdem Dec 5 #32

Is the 3rd option written by AI? Kaleva Dec 3 #14

LOL mr715 Dec 3 #16

Thank you for picking up on that ! :D At first, I tried to write an AI-sounding post which I thought would capture ... eppur_se_muova Dec 4 #19

I don't know to be honest Niagara Dec 3 #15

How does anyone feel comfortable posting AI slop under their own name? hunter Dec 3 #17

Labelled KentuckyWoman Dec 4 #20

Isn't that like asking whether YouTube videos or links to Twitter posts should be a violation of the terms of service? meadowlander Dec 4 #21

Actually yes, theoretically no? jfz9580m Dec 4 #22

This is a confusing question jfz9580m Dec 4 #23

We need to push back against AI, but with a caveat... carpetbagger Dec 5 #24

One issue i see is people spamming the board with some slop video with no context in the body fujiyamasan Dec 5 #25

I think it's EarlG's call canetoad Dec 5 #26

If the AI-created content violates the TOS - yes. Ms. Toad Dec 5 #27

Well, I'm open to it, but it should be clearly clarified as being modified, etc. Just like photographs, videos, etc. SWBTATTReg Dec 5 #28

I'm up for it. usonian Dec 5 #29

Based on my own selfish entertainment, I'd say "no" simply because flvegan Dec 5 #30

Important to check what is correct whether from humans, AI, or a million typing monkeys. RoeVWade Dec 5 #33

Wouldn't it be better to campaign for alerting on false information before AI content? muriel_volestrangler Dec 5 #34