AI seems like yet the latest IT/tech buzzword and everywhere you read about it the explanation is different. Maybe 5 yrs ago we would talk about doing a web search or ‘googling it’ when someone asked a really basic question on any number of topics. I am not sure that calling it AI makes the answers any better and clearly if software is just randomly grabbing a bunch of info found online, the reliability of the reply is the first thing I would question.
A reply totally written by ‘AI’ usually included clumsy grammar and worded in such a way that isn’t how the typical person speaks.
Have you tried it? I just tried it for advice about a housing decision after my 30 something unexpectedly returned home in crisis, and also about how to balance advocacy and acceptance concerning a friend with a brain tumor. It was extraordinarily helpful. It has also been helpful with medical questions and I finally got a term for my trigeminal neuropathy (not neuralgia). I am not a fan, however. I fear that the speed and ease is going to mean humans no longer read and write, and therapists may go out of business as well as programmers. It answers in seconds.
Doing an internet search has been possible for many years and certainly long before the AI buzzword became the next bit IT thing. Everything running a computer program didn’t suddenly become an example of AI. I don’t consider anything AI when the same set of input results in the same output.
Thanks to the op for bringing this discussion to us.
I am frustrated that we’ve gone this far and only mentioned the ethics of the very existence of this technology once. Large language models–and I gather that’s what we’re talking about here, I think–work by hoovering up the writings of others without acknowledgement or compensation. I don’t care too much if some post I made three years ago ends up being taken, but I resent the idea that scholarship or reportage or poetry or a novel, the end product of years of work, are glibly stolen, hashed and monetized without the owners’ say so. It’s plagiarism on a post-industrial scale, but it’s still plagiarism.
Plus, on a personal level, I come to this forum to chat with people I don’t have access to in my physical life; it’s a social experience in a small way, and I’d rather we all agree not to invite robots in. They’ve dehumanized my life enough already.
Objecting to AI-avoidance on the grounds that it is quixotic or grounded in naivete bothers me. In my view, it should be regulated, and we should be explicit in setting voluntary guidelines for its use in places like this.
My main issue with AI here on CC is as an essay reader. And that comes up in different ways. Obviously some are using it for writing, sometimes brainstorming and sometimes actually writing. Then again, some students are being accused of using AI when they aren’t. Finally, if AI is screening essays, I believe some of the more creative essays (stream of consciousness for instance) will be screened out.
Technology is moving too fast. Every technological development changes culture in unanticipated ways. Air conditioning and tv conspired to keep people inside, reducing social connection, for instance. Phones, well of course.
I find it soothing to watch old movies before cell phones and computers. Phone booths and typewriters. Of course a lot of cigarettes too. I am in my 70’s so even computers and smart phones are “new” to me. Tv was new when I was a child!
Is there an ethical way to use AI? Can it be regulated? I believe money will motivate its use and dread the result. In the meantime, I was both fascinated and dismayed at how well it answered my questions. But then again, I am not in a hurry and Google was just fine. In my younger years it was a card file in the local library and I enjoyed that- walking to the library, the tactile experience of the card file and the eventual book, the hushed environment.
The author initially found AI seductive but has realized over time how it flattens expression and reduces the “care,” “attention” and insights we gain from writing.
Bumping this because I’d like the mods to consider rules for the community regarding AI use in forum comments.
I’m increasingly dismayed to see comments in all sorts of posts stating “I asked ChatGPT and…” or “I asked Gemini…” and then pasting in results.
It’s of course well intentioned, but it’s both the downfall of discussion forums, and frequently it’s incorrect and incomplete information, but now it’s stamped with a veneer of authority in some people’s eyes. There are not only issues with “garbage in, garbage out” but also with AI drawing inappropriate conclusions and presenting it as fact. Then the next time someone makes a query that prior poor conclusion is included in the search results and “that’s what the search results say” becomes the default answer, rather than what’s true or nuanced.
In any event, here, on discussion forums, we shouldn’t be ceding our discussions to AI prompts and responses, or there ceases to be a reason to have a forum at all, and we’ll lose the thoughts and ideas of the people that make CC such a rich source of lived experiences, thoughts and opinions. We’ll lose the community in our community.
Personally I’m OK with posts that clearly cite/say they are AI generated. I disagree that there is a veneer of authority with AI generated responses though. IMO, I usually view them with much more skepticism and for posters asking for real world experiences, those responses are totally irrelevant.
I suspect that, over time, people who post in the manner described will get less engagement, fewer responses, and less helpful responses. Hopefully, it will be the case that people who seek active engagement will just use their noodle instead of relying on AI. I feel there is already some backlash against AI, at least here.
That said, I can’t imagine any way we’d be able to enforce a ban on users posting with AI generated content. I don’t think it is practical for CC to state that users can’t post content with AI in it. If we see them, or when flagged, we already do delete responses by new users that are clearly AI generated. It would require untold hours to enforce a restriction on people using AI in posts.
Why would it be more time consuming to enforce than when people flag something for being off topic?
Make it against the rules to copy and past AI results and let the users flag it.
If someone says “I asked Gemini which was the best route from Raleigh to Seattle and it say XYZ, but I was thinking ABC might be better, can folks weigh in and tell me your experience” then that is a discussion. But when someone chimes in on a question another user had and says, “I asked ChatGPT and here’s what it said” that should be against the rules of a discussion board. That’s worse than “Let me Google that for you”.
People can always flag a post for review. But the question asked by @blueberriesforsal was can CC make a rule about using AI in posts. I am saying it will be impractical to try and enforce such a rule.
I really don’t have an issue with it so long as the user properly says, “I asked ChatGPT and they said …” At that point, other users can use or discard that info.
I don’t see how the above is less desirable than the responses that say, “I think…”
We don’t prohibit users from giving their opinion even when, as is often the case, they don’t explicitly say it’s their opinion.
As another mod noted, we do handle situations where posts are AI and the user fails to credit AI.
In terms of the OP, I use AI to answer simple questions like enrollments, applications, admission rates, etc. that as recently as a year ago would have taken me multiple clicks on multiple pages clustered like Russian dolls on various webpages. First of all, AI will tell me right away whether there’s a public source for what I’m looking for; that alone saves a ton of time. And I always check the source provided as - even AI - will mistake Wesleyan, the NESCAC college with any number of other colleges worthy of the John Wesley family name.
As an aside, I don’t think I come across as a bot in my posts - but tell me, if I do!
I really, really dislike Chat’s natural “voice” with the little graphics peppered everywhere, way too much bold type, most paragraphs just one line, etc. It makes me sad every time I see posts like that. Do Chat’s users really have such terrible reading skills and attention spans that they need all of its text output to be oversimplified and then organized and formatted in that way? I should probably stop reading this thread but I guess I am helplessly doomscrolling.
I am offended by the use of AI for trivial things like describing one’s writing style or how many students are enrolled at a college because AI is soooo very destructive to the environment and society, but that’s where we are I guess. Not that y’all care, but just know that if you use AI this way I will be silently (from now on) judging you. I think AI has a lot of useful applications – in the medical field, for example, to help detect cancer earlier – but the trivial and stupid uses of it like “make an image of me as Jesus” just both annoy and dismay me. But that’s all I’ll say about it.
