AI Spam in the Forums

InternetJeff · 2025-04-06T17:08:31+00:00

Before a new bucket of worms gets opened about flagging posts, it needs to be unequivocally stated whether or not it is allowed to flag responses to topics which are obviously cut and paste text from some AI chatbot, versus an organic response. I’m not talking about in topics where AI is discussed and examples of it are demonstrated. I’m talking about where poster(s) copy AI crud into ordinary topics. This appears to be happening. Request a ruling on this in advance please.

DrStrange

Donoreo At least if I Google it, you’ll get a professionally vetted and curated response. 🙂

Sometimes I miss having to use (physical) print sources for everything.

vaxvms

DrStrange

you’ll get ~~a professionally vetted and curated response~~
an AI generated response.

urbanriot

Donawalt

So, I am not an expert at all, but thinking about it, what’s the difference between asking an AI chat bot to look up something vs. looking it up on Google

It’s basically the same thing but you have to cite the source, as in, “I googled it and I saw this” which is one step below actually posting an actual citation but sometimes it works. Depends on the nature of the conversation and whether or not proof is actually required. Gemini, ChatGPT, or CoPilot is about as accurate / inaccurate as Wikipedia.

Rook

broknsymetry As long as it’s cited I don’t see a problem.

I agree. People can decide for themselves whether they want to read AI-generated stuff or not.

broknsymetry

Part of any citation should include the prompt.

egeezer

DrStrange

If I use a search engine for researching a topic, I typically get a response from an external source which I almost always am able to provide.

But if I were to use an AI bot(like some search engines are starting to ‘feature’ as a response), it almost always returns a response without a source to support its findings.

My experience with ChatGPT is that if I ask for sources, it often either evades the request or may simply fabricate one.

IMO if a bot or AI tool is the source of a post, it should be cited just like any other work that is not the work of the poster.

Disclaimer: I didn’t use AI to post this 😃

Donoreo

egeezer But if I were to use an AI bot(like some search engines are starting to ‘feature’ as a response), it almost always returns a response without a source to support its findings.

I am finding now that when Google slips in Gemini, it always has a link to the source.

vaxvms

Donoreo fwiw: if you include a derogatory word in your search query Gemini won’t respond.
ie, If you do a search for “what’s the value of love” Gemini will insert it’s 2 cents in the results. A search for “what’s the value of love shithead” will include no opinion from Gemini.

Donawalt

HooRU Wow I jumped as soon as I read your reply - reminded me instantly of one of my favorite movies, “A League of Their Own” - Jimmy Dugan says, “It’s supposed to be hard. If it wasn’t hard, everyone would do it. The hard is what makes it great.”

Great scene, great movie…

GeekGirl1

This is a concern in another forum I help moderate. The approach is to (1) post the query which produced the content and (2) have the bot cite its sources.

Moderators can check for AI posts with an AI detector. Google “chatgpt detector” for free online AI detectors.

A community guideline needs to be created. Once you have that, the moderators can (and should) enforce the guidelines.

Members can help the moderators by flagging the post and explain how you know it’s an AI.

Donoreo

GeekGirl1 A community guideline needs to be created.

I posted a basic one to get them started.

ugly95

An AI search should also provide the citations it is pulling from.

So, why not quote the cited reference instead of the just reposting the AI output directly and hope that it accurately describes the source?

Rich221976

Rook

I’m offline for a few days due to not feeling well. Well mostly exhaustion. (when you sitting up trying to drink a diet soda, and all I can manage to do is spill it on the couch on myself it’s time for a nice long nap). Also got my neck injection today and found this new post.

I haven’t really seen the AI but then I probably not posing in those threads anyways. Now I did mention I used the image playground from Apple when trying to help with the design of the guitar. Now I can promise you that the hand drawn and crayon colored one when actually made by me. I am bad at drawing.

Rich221976

HooRU

I let AI/auto correct fix my spelling. Doesn’t always work though. However, I don’t normally use the suggestions it provides to me. Only because the ones that are produced for me are so snotty that I would piss off all of my friends.

dave

The recent probable-AI sightings have all involved one user and the response are all turgid lists of bullet points, reminiscent of middle-management powerpoint presentations.

I’m not a fan of the “just ignore it” approach; I think it’s spamming up the forum with junk, to the detriment of the more original posters, like some sort of mutant Gresham’s Law.

Heat84

I don’t use AI at all, except for school assignments over a year ago because I had to. It scares me. I could just be paranoid, but then again, maybe I’ll end up being one of the few humans still alive at the end of the movie.

Somewhat-Reticent

A while after an initial barrage of AI-generated posts came and went,
posting of AI-generated “content” ( AKA “SPAM” ) without link(s) to source(s)
is increasing unchecked and threatens to become common practice.
( AI (Automated Idiocy) Apocalypse on schedule? ) 🙄

vaxvms

Somewhat-Reticent AI (Absurd Ineptitude)

InternetJeff

IMO, AI screenshots should be banned unless the specific AI is identified from which the AI output is scraped, and citation links for each AI assertion should be posted when provided by the AI. Quote the AI output text and any citations provided, not just a screenshot.

Astyanax

Heat84 I don’t use AI at all, except for school assignments over a year ago because I had to.

LOL!

« Previous Page Next Page »