I have never used text generated by LLMs in my posts. However, I do not think authors should be required to disclose this. I would just let the visibility of posts be guided by their karma.
The laissez-faire option is flawed because LLM-generated writing is increasingly difficult to detect.
This is not good or bad in itself?
There are posts (I’ve seen a lot of these) which have the form of a good quality post which is worth reading, but on closer analysis turn out not to contain any ideas, or just to contain a couple of bullet points’ worth of ideas, surrounded by a lot of fluff and repetition. This leads to quite a large waste of time for the reader.
The posts described above can be skimmed quickly, and then not voted on, or downvoted, thus not wasting much of readers’ time, and not gaining visibility?
@Vasco Grilo🔸 have a look at my latest reply to @Ben_West🔸 below. I think there is a worldview where it’s important and “good” to know who wrote the words, and who we are interacting with. I think we might even start to see legislation and guidelines which demand disclosure of who wrote what. Before AI, it was just assumed that all our words were our own. There are exceptions in human norms to this like having a “ghost writer” but I think that’s ethically wrong too.
Putting aside whether it’s “good” or “bad” for something to be written by an AI, and putting aside the question of quality, at the very least given it’s hard to detect if a human writes it or not, I think as a human readers should have the right to know who they are interacting with. Is it a human? Is it an AI? Is it a mix of both and how did they mix?
at the very least given it’s hard to detect if a human writes it or not, I think as a human readers should have the right to know who they are interacting with. Is it a human? Is it an AI? Is it a mix of both and how did they mix?
For me what matters more is that people who publish posts could be held accountable for their content, regardless of how much of this written by LLMs. So I agree with keeping anonymous bots out. I even wonder whether it would be better to ban all anonymous users (after giving them the opportunity to identify themselves).
Hi Toby and Francis. Thanks for the update.
I have never used text generated by LLMs in my posts. However, I do not think authors should be required to disclose this. I would just let the visibility of posts be guided by their karma.
This is not good or bad in itself?
The posts described above can be skimmed quickly, and then not voted on, or downvoted, thus not wasting much of readers’ time, and not gaining visibility?
@Vasco Grilo🔸 have a look at my latest reply to @Ben_West🔸 below. I think there is a worldview where it’s important and “good” to know who wrote the words, and who we are interacting with. I think we might even start to see legislation and guidelines which demand disclosure of who wrote what. Before AI, it was just assumed that all our words were our own. There are exceptions in human norms to this like having a “ghost writer” but I think that’s ethically wrong too.
Putting aside whether it’s “good” or “bad” for something to be written by an AI, and putting aside the question of quality, at the very least given it’s hard to detect if a human writes it or not, I think as a human readers should have the right to know who they are interacting with. Is it a human? Is it an AI? Is it a mix of both and how did they mix?
Hi Nick.
For me what matters more is that people who publish posts could be held accountable for their content, regardless of how much of this written by LLMs. So I agree with keeping anonymous bots out. I even wonder whether it would be better to ban all anonymous users (after giving them the opportunity to identify themselves).