I would frown on someone running a prompt, and then pasting the unedited output as the main part of one’s post. Posting a prompt and then asking the user to run the prompt and read the output strikes me as essentially the same thing. At least in the first scenario, the nominal user-author has probably at least read the specific output in question.
Although the norms allow users to employ AI assistance in producing content, [1] this exercise goes too far for me. (In my view, heavy reliance on AI can sometimes be okay in the context of comments if the use is disclosed.)
Wow, Sorry no this entire post was from me. Four humans by humans. The monospace text box is a prompt that you’re supposed to paste in to one of the chatbots, to see the results.
But the exercise of pasting and reading the results is carrying ~the entire argument here. The first two paragraphs basically say that you think we’re missing something obvious; the post-prompt material links some reference materials without commentary. The prompt itself conveys instructions to an AI, not your argument to a human reader.
To the extent that the reader is discerning and evaluating your argument, they can only do so through running the prompt and reading the raw AI output. So the content that actually carries the argument is not, in my view, “your content” which you have merely “use[d] an AI to help you compose . . . .” Without the use of the raw AI content, what argument do the four corners of the post convey?
I put links to the theory there. I have read this theory. The conclusions are obvious if you read the theory. I can’t do a better job than CGP Gray’s 20 minute amazing explanatory cartoon.
If you watch that video then I will fully engage in human chat. But I can’t have that discourse with someone if they haven’t done the basic prerequisite of understanding selectorate theory, which is a nearly canonical model of how politics works game theoretically.
Y’all going to try this out? Why the down votes? (Removed a comment about “cowards”.)
I would frown on someone running a prompt, and then pasting the unedited output as the main part of one’s post. Posting a prompt and then asking the user to run the prompt and read the output strikes me as essentially the same thing. At least in the first scenario, the nominal user-author has probably at least read the specific output in question.
Although the norms allow users to employ AI assistance in producing content, [1] this exercise goes too far for me. (In my view, heavy reliance on AI can sometimes be okay in the context of comments if the use is disclosed.)
“If you, as a human, use an AI to help you compose your content, which you then post under your own name, that’s fine.”
Wow, Sorry no this entire post was from me. Four humans by humans. The monospace text box is a prompt that you’re supposed to paste in to one of the chatbots, to see the results.
But the exercise of pasting and reading the results is carrying ~the entire argument here. The first two paragraphs basically say that you think we’re missing something obvious; the post-prompt material links some reference materials without commentary. The prompt itself conveys instructions to an AI, not your argument to a human reader.
To the extent that the reader is discerning and evaluating your argument, they can only do so through running the prompt and reading the raw AI output. So the content that actually carries the argument is not, in my view, “your content” which you have merely “use[d] an AI to help you compose . . . .” Without the use of the raw AI content, what argument do the four corners of the post convey?
Are we trying to get at truth here are we trying to engage ideas?
Or is this an athletic exercise of performing discourse?
I put links to the theory there. I have read this theory. The conclusions are obvious if you read the theory. I can’t do a better job than CGP Gray’s 20 minute amazing explanatory cartoon.
If you watch that video then I will fully engage in human chat. But I can’t have that discourse with someone if they haven’t done the basic prerequisite of understanding selectorate theory, which is a nearly canonical model of how politics works game theoretically.