AI Generated content

Should CB allow AI generated content?

  • Total voters
    13
SatNavSaysStraightOn

SatNavSaysStraightOn

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
11 Oct 2012
Local time
9:54 PM
Messages
20,603
Location
SE Australia
Website
www.satnavsaysstraighton.com
AI generated content has been brought to my attention by CookieMonster after I approved a post that an AI generated detection tool has picked up as 100% AI. I had edited the post to remove the new member pushing their blog. It did sound polished but not AI generated. (My uni course has had a lot of AI involvement and exposure.)

I am aware that AI bots have recently found CB and started to "crawl" through the pages. This could actually benefit the site attracting new members. But it does raise the issue of AI generated content (and AI spam).

This poll is specifically related to AI generated content being posted manually by humans. Do you want it? Would it be acceptable if English was not the members first language?

So before the rules are modified, I thought I would ask what members want, even though I'm pretty certain I know the answer ;)

SNSSO
 
I vote for human posts. I get the language barrier but there are also tools to translate pages. Perhaps a fine line between the translator being an actual translator app or a bot I couldn't say; out of my area of expertise. If AI posts are allowed they should, if possible, be clearly indicated as such.
 
I get the translation thingy, but that has been around for a long time.
No issues with that.
I get by with having to look up the odd word and I probably use the wrong grammar at times, but I think nobody here worries too much about it
I don't see why you need AI to translate, but I may not understand it well enough

As far as I am concerned, I'm not interested in discussions with bots or non-humans. At a minimum, it should be indicated like Barrie suggests.

I'm not sure how to vote, so I didn't
 
badjak said:
I get the translation thingy, but that has been around for a long time.
No issues with that.
I get by with having to look up the odd word and I probably use the wrong grammar at times, but I think nobody here worries too much about it
I don't see why you need AI to translate, but I may not understand it well enough

As far as I am concerned, I'm not interested in discussions with bots or non-humans. At a minimum, it should be indicated like Barrie suggests.

I'm not sure how to vote, so I didn't
Click to expand...
So you needed an "unsure" or "undecided" option maybe?
 
AI translating for non English speaking members is fine by me but AI generated content no thanks.
I want to know the person posting has an interest in what they are posting and is interested in having a conversation.
I don’t want to chat to bot who can’t actually eat food or share the shame experience of cooking food as a human.

I’d be more inclined to talk to the dog, at least they have taste buds 😂
 
As others have pointed out, translator tools should generally be fine.
Heck I once played a game on a russian server, there were a group of spanish speakers on it too (but I don't speak spanish) and an extremely small group of english speakers.
I managed a few conversations with russians, and I can 100% tell you google translate at that time was super bad at translating russian 😅
But yup, translators should fill the gap without having ai generated text on site
 
translation software/apps were/are famously bad at their task.
the nuances of one language to another exceeded the programmers ability to construct 'subroutines / functions' to do "grammar/usage" really good aka "right"
AI input could certainly improve those efforts.

however - AI is 'defined' by the programmatic ability to do a word count of thousands of internet sources (sources defined by the programmers, aka those with bias...) with keywords "as entered" by the user. when AI finishes its 'word count' - it pronounces the word-count-article-winner as "truth"

AI is absolutely no more advanced than the vote for Home Coming Queen
 
CookieMonster said:
translation software/apps were/are famously bad at their task.
the nuances of one language to another exceeded the programmers ability to construct 'subroutines / functions' to do "grammar/usage" really good aka "right"
AI input could certainly improve those efforts.

however - AI is 'defined' by the programmatic ability to do a word count of thousands of internet sources (sources defined by the programmers, aka those with bias...) with keywords "as entered" by the user. when AI finishes its 'word count' - it pronounces the word-count-article-winner as "truth"

AI is absolutely no more advanced than the vote for Home Coming Queen
Click to expand...
yup, ai likes it's own version of truth ChatGPT falsely told man he killed his children
 
CookieMonster said:
translation software/apps were/are famously bad at their task.
the nuances of one language to another exceeded the programmers ability to construct 'subroutines / functions' to do "grammar/usage" really good aka "right"
AI input could certainly improve those efforts.

however - AI is 'defined' by the programmatic ability to do a word count of thousands of internet sources (sources defined by the programmers, aka those with bias...) with keywords "as entered" by the user. when AI finishes its 'word count' - it pronounces the word-count-article-winner as "truth"

AI is absolutely no more advanced than the vote for Home Coming Queen
Click to expand...
Well stated!
 
I’ve found with translation it requires more than one go.
You have to translate and then translate it back again to the original language you started with. That seems to pick up a lot of mistakes and gives you the opportunity to refine it.

Also sticking with the most simple sentence construction you possibly can or even missing out connecting words and just using a sort of shorthand is very effective.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom