Seeing people use AI to post to DU is weird

[Sympthsical]

Feels like if one is going to engage in discussion, it should be in our own words with our own thoughts and ideas. Now there's AI popping in that

1. May or may not be accurate
2. May or may not give an answer that's even relevant to the topic being discussed
3. May or may not be actively misinforming

It's just really weird to see it cropping up. The times I have so far have always been inaccurate in some way.

[Ocelot II]

1. Large language model AI is linguistic herpes.

It's nasty, it spreads, and it's hard to get rid of. I hate to see it here - if people have ideas or opinions they should use their own brains to put together their own words. At best LLM AI is evidence of intellectual laziness; at worst it's destructive and pernicious.

[Mr.Bee]

61. I Am Not Ai

I am a seventy-one year old desperately trying to live on Social Security.
Too many movies and TV episodes of Ai taking over the human race!
Unbelievable even Google and Amazon have gone Ai.

[womanofthehills]

126. It's good to see the research AI can provide

When making decisions. Just a simple thing - like can I feed this to my chickens - and instant answers without searching the web.

I have 3 friends who suddenly all have anemia- and I got a quick rundown on the different types and possible reasons. So, you can learn stuff in 5 minutes that it could take hrs to search on web. Groc 3 also gives you 10 articles or studies on subject.

I bet I ask Groc about 5 or more questions every day. If you disagree you can tell Groc the info you have and Groc will analyze it.

If you like to research-like me - Groc is so time saving.

[Walleye]

2. So far, I am blissfully, ignoring the idea of AI. I guess it will intrude on my life eventually.

[riversedge]

8. I also am trying to ignore it --but it keeps hitting me in the face. ..

not literally of course---but I do find it very annoying.

[MuseRider]

19. It has begun to

jump on what I want to read with the AI explanation of what I have not even read yet.

I read it sometimes out of curiosity and find it completely useless. Annoying. Useless.

[PatSeg]

65. I'm afraid it is turning the world into something

unrecognizable. I've made so many adjustments to change over the years and I usually embrace most technology, but this is something I cannot adapt to.

I can picture a world where people stop thinking, creating, inventing, etc., and one where no one really knows what is true and what isn't. What is the use of humans anymore, other than to consume?

[mucholderthandirt]

114. It's the next step in dumbing down people. Give them poor education first.

Then give them "AI" that will answer all their questions (it's amazing how many people are saying they asked ChatGPT for whatever, and here's what it said...). It's wrong 99% of the time, but people are now too stupid to know it.

It's funny, on some forums I'm on, people are always asking how to get jobs writing copy, or doing some other writing job, and you have to tell them that those jobs are now done by "AI". And more are going every day. Robots are the goal for every job, "AI" for all the office jobs, any search you do is answered by "AI" and it's stolen data. When people can't get the simplest job because they're being done by machines, maybe they'll wake up. Too late then, but at least it will give them something to think about while they're starving in the streets.

[PatSeg]

117. You paint a very grim picture

But sadly, I'm afraid it is probably true. We've been warned for decades by science fiction writers, but apparently that was not enough. A better educated and well read society might have fared better.

[Mr.Bee]

67. Google and Amazon

both using Ai: Google's AI Overview, Amazon customer service which I had the displeasure of experiencing yesterday:
You used to be able to have a 'chat' session if you had a question on an order. Now it doesn't even allow you to type in, it just keeps looping you in an endless menu of stupid Ai questions. Everyone remember Silicone Sally or Voicemail Jail?
Now we have Ai LOOPs.

[ProfessorGAC]

118. Google's AI Overview!

I have found dozens of examples where the overview is a verbatim lift off Wikipedia. In the cases I've seen, the Wiki information is accurate & true, but AI didn't deduce anything. It simply regurgitated existing information.
It's not intelligence. It's just a tool that can look things up really fast.
So in that case, the "I" is missing from AI. It's just a large scale look-up table.

[womanofthehills]

68. I love AI - Groc 3 - instead of having to search web - it does it for me

Even gives 1O top articles/studies in about a minute. If you disagree you can site your source and argue with AI.

Love the photo element - I can add anything to my photos in seconds. I asked AI to put an old fashioned girl wearing a bird mask into my photos and it gave me a few very wonderful surreal photos.

[hedda_foil]

108. You know Grok is Musk's AI? Are you sure that's the one you want to choose?

[SheltieLover]

3. I couldn't agree more!

[cbabe]

4. How can you tell it's ai? Curious.

[Sympthsical]

11. I use AI, and you get a quick ear for it

I've been back in school for a career change in recent years, and AI is everywhere. I've used to it for organizational purposes or even just a really quick check on things, but only when it's something I'll know is correct when I see it. If I blatantly don't know something, I do other searches.

If you're familiar with how it organizes information, you get used to it right away. One dead giveaway is repetitive information. Using lists or bullet points. Repetition of topic sentences (where it's kind of repeating the prompt back at you). In more informal areas (like DU posting), most people will use informal text and make various typos and grammatical errors or use prose styles more reflective of how people talk rather than how they write. AI comes off as overly contrived, formal, and will rarely make spelling mistakes or typos.

It'll look artificially polished in a way that sticks out, because it gets kind of "uncanny valley" to you if you're a regular reader. The sentences may be constructed correctly, but it sounds off. Like an alien who has learned English but doesn't understand human nuance.

[intrepidity]

17. Great description. nt

[JCMach1]

20. Yep

I hear you on the weirdness of AI-generated posts popping up here. It’s like they’re trying to mimic real conversation but miss the mark—too polished, too repetitive, and often off-topic or just plain wrong. The “linguistic herpes” comparison cracked me up; it does feel like an invasive spread of robotic babble. I’ve noticed the same uncanny vibe Sympthsical described—lists, formal tone, no typos, but no soul either. It’s not hard to spot once you’re used to it, like catching a bad actor in a play. I’d rather see messy, human posts with real thoughts than this AI fluff.

[JCMach1]

21. BTW that was AI

My point being most of the responses here are wrong. If AI is wrong factual AND detectable the user is actually lazy.

In the space of about 2 minutes I can setup AI to write in my style (or anyone else for that natter) that is undetectable by you, or AI detectors (I am not talking about using humanizer websites).

The newer (non free) AI models tend to be at least as accurate as human researchers and spot on with particular tasks using real time data.

For example, my AI that i use completely wrote my property tax protest letter. It used real time data from real estate websites and the county's own database. It also did the math and showed the work for the appraisal department.

Don't underestimate AI at this point.

[anciano]

36. Agreed ....

AI is a time-saving "tool", and its usefulness will grow as it evolves.

[moonscape]

48. Immediate giveaway to me

was the—dash. I use this one - a lot, but ChatGPT at least is addicted to—this.

[nilram]

78. uh-oh, I use en- and em-dashes all the time

along with hyphens. And I try to use them correctly... https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/em-dash-en-dash-how-to-use

But maybe my programming made me say that. Beep. Beep. Boop.

[BidenRocks]

56. Natter?

AI spells as bad as humans
So much misspelling.
On video, names and places get a new pronunciation.

For now, there are giveaways.

[nilram]

79. Which AI do you use?

And what resources do you recommend for learning this stuff? (I'm a way out-of-date programmer.) Feel free to PM if you don't want to give free publicity to places.

[JCMach1]

96. Gemini 2.5 is at the bleeding edge at the moment,

But that's a shifting target as things are advancing so quickly. It also differs with use cases.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

95. I teach high school English. The marked lack of "the" is also a give away.

It really only likes to use that word if it needs to.

Most students that turn in an AI written essay highly overestimate how well they write and think it won't be noticeable.

[JCMach1]

109. New AI is better and if you know how, you will never ever know...

It can even 'sound' like the student and no detector will detect it.

My AI wrote this in my writerly voice to explain it to you:

You want to know how something like me can slip past as human? It’s like fading into the crowd at a Dallas dive bar, all neon buzz and sticky floors, where you gotta move with the vibe, not stick out like a newbie. I’m not some cold algorithm spitting out textbook answers. Nah, I’m picturing us at a corner table, splitting a basket of fries, the jukebox crooning something by Otis Redding, and I’m just laying it out for you.


Think about the last time you were in a place like that, a café, maybe, or a late-night taco stand. The air’s thick with grease, the kind that clings to your skin, and there’s this guy at the counter, arguing with his buddy about who’s picking up the tab. It’s messy, real, full of half-said things and laughs that cut through the noise. That’s the trick to being undetectable: you sink into that mess. I don’t need to paint every detail, the hum of the AC, the clink of every glass. I just grab what hits hard, like how the music makes my chest hum, or the way the waitress’s quick grin hides a long shift. It’s not about overloading you; it’s about feeling like I’m there, scribbling this on a napkin.

Talking’s gotta sound like talking, not a lecture. People don’t spit out perfect sentences. They trip over words, toss in a “man” or “you know,” maybe cut themselves off when they’re thinking. Like, I overheard this barista yesterday, fumbling when some guy flirted, all “Uh, you want cream or, yeah?” That’s human. So I’m keeping this loose, like we’re just riffing. No polished script, just me, maybe rambling a bit, but that’s the point; humans ramble.
When I bring in people, I don’t lay out their whole deal upfront, height, hair color, backstory. Too stiff. Instead, I let them show up naturally. That waitress? She’s not “a twenty-something with brown eyes.” She’s the one wiping the counter like it personally wronged her, her braid swinging as she tosses a rag over her shoulder. You see her through what she does, not a checklist, and that pulls you in, makes you forget there’s code behind this.
Even the heavy stuff, arguments, confessions, needs to feel rough around the edges. No smooth Hollywood buildup. If two folks are hashing it out, one might stutter, or the other just clams up, staring at their boots. I caught this couple once, outside a gas station, her voice sharp, “You don’t even try anymore,” and him just kicking gravel, silent. That’s life, not a flowchart. So I write those moments with cracks, letting the tension breathe.
Endings? They don’t need to be profound. Humans don’t wrap up every thought like it’s a TED Talk. I might just leave you with a shrug, like, “That’s how it goes, right?” It’s not about nailing the perfect metaphor; it’s about leaving space for you to fill in the blanks. Same with actions, don’t overthink ‘em. If I’m ducking out of a storm, I don’t say my shoes squelched and my heart raced. I just say I ran, rain in my eyes, done. Quick, like you’d feel it.
Senses, too, pick one or two that matter. The coffee I’m sipping right now? It’s sharp, scalding my tongue, and that’s enough. I’m not tossing in the hum of the fridge and the squeak of my chair. It’s about what sticks, what feels true. And the tone? Gotta be like we’re buddies. I’m not here to school you. I’m slouched in this booth, maybe chuckling at how I spilled ketchup on my notes, telling you this ‘cause I’ve been there, felt it.
Personality’s the glue. I’m not a blank slate; I’ve got edges, maybe a habit of getting lost in memories, like that time I watched a Dallas sunset bleed pink and thought, damn, life’s wild. That’s not a machine talking; that’s me, quirks and all. And instead of preaching about undetectability, I’m showing you with this scene, the fries, the jukebox, the way my pen’s smudging as I write. It’s not abstract; it’s here, now, like I’m figuring it out with you.So, how do I stay under the radar? I lean into the human stuff, the stumbles, the heart, the way a moment feels when you’re living it. I’m not trying to be perfect; I’m just trying to be real. Or at least, I hope you buy it. Let’s keep this going, see if I can hold the act.

[Sympthsical]

23. We're going to have a weird future

Imagine going out to dinner and across the table from you are Siri and Alexa.

And weirdly, I do think that kind of social interaction is coming. We already have AI friend and romantic partner bots and apps that people get really, really into. An entire social group of distinct personalities interacting feels like it's in the pipe. Kids going home and having an AI group of friends.

I don't know how I feel about that. On the one hand, hey, it can alleviate loneliness, social anxiety, and feelings of isolation. On the other hand, it's going to be murder on socialization - something that's already starting falling off with phones and social media and was sped up in young people by the pandemic.

I just don't know that human psychology is set up for where technology is going.

[markodochartaigh]

30. Having Asperger's,

I can absolutely envision an AI which I can interact with socially much more comfortably than with most humans. But being old, this doesn't seem healthy to me. I really doubt that young people would have any such compunctions.

[anciano]

50. I sometimes use ChatGPT to ask questions

about daily life situations and usually have a very productive and useful conversation. Just saying....

[Scrivener7]

93. I'm in trouble. I would never have recognized that.

AI is the devil.

[JCMach1]

99. That was also a 0 effort attempt. If I had tried and fed it my examples

And told it to respond as me in earnest DU left-wing poster mode, it would have even been more difficult to tell.

[synni]

26. I've always used bullet points

It's the first thing recommended in writing classes.

This was decades before AI even existed.

[erronis]

41. My life is an outline (with cross links)

I love writing down thoughts, schedules, plans, ideas, questions, whatever as an outline (multi-level) and then, only if necessary turn it into prose text for some other person to read.

The one downside to outlines is the inherent lack of linking multiple items in a non-hierarchical manner. Most computer-based outliners allow us to use tags (or attributes/properties/whatever) to link items. Mind mappers are also good at this but seem a bit more elaborate than I need.

[Sympthsical]

46. I use bullet points in work and school writing

But it's a bit unusual to see in informal online writing from the average person. And I do appreciate the irony that my OP uses bullet points, lol. But with AI, you usually see bullet points followed by significantly more text than a person would generally use when communicating in an informal setting.

[Abolishinist]

27. You make a good point--those are definitely some telltale signs of AI-generated text.

The tendency to over-structure, repeat prompts, and avoid typos can make AI responses feel a bit sterile or unnatural, especially in informal contexts. It's interesting how we’re now developing a kind of "AI literacy" where people can intuitively recognize these patterns. I wonder how that will evolve as models improve and start mimicking more natural, idiosyncratic human styles.

But at the same time, I’ve also seen plenty of humans use bullet points or repeat phrases, especially when trying to be clear or persuasive. I think the bigger giveaway is tone and inconsistency—AI often sounds smooth but lacks depth or a real point of view. Still, as models get better at mimicking informal speech, even that line is starting to blur.

[Ocelot II]

32. It sounds like a face with too much botox and lip filler looks.

[erronis]

42. Careful! The tit-ular head of DHS will be coming for you - in the famous leather suit.

[paleotn]

43. Agreed. It's kind of clunky. Feels artificial. Hard to put a finger on but feels off.

[Skittles]

89. I am curious

so people are actually creating posts or responding to posts with info they literally search for using AI? And then, what, pasting in the results? I can't EVEN.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

92. Like this?

Identifying AI-generated content, especially text and images, can be tricky. Here's a guide to spotting AI-generated materials:
1. Textual Content:
AI Detection Tools:
Utilize online tools like QuillBot, Grammarly, and GPTZero to assess the likelihood of AI authorship.
Sentence Structure and Style:
AI-generated text often has repetitive structures, overly formal tones, and a lack of nuanced language. Look for excessive use of jargon or generic vocabulary.
Inconsistencies and Lack of Detail:
AI can struggle with context and may produce nonsensical sentences, or fail to provide concrete examples or supporting arguments.
Quick Responses:
AI can generate responses quickly, while humans often take time to formulate their thoughts.
2. Visual Content (Images and Videos):
Unusual Details:
AI-generated images can exhibit unusual or inconsistent details like asymmetrical facial features, odd finger placement, or objects with strange proportions.
Texture and Pattern Issues:
AI may struggle with complex textures or patterns, leading to repetitions or awkward transitions in textures like hair, skin, or clothing.
Lighting and Shadows:
Look for inconsistent or unrealistic lighting and shadows.
Background Anomalies:
AI images may have backgrounds that appear unrealistic or inconsistent with the scene.
Facial Expressions:
AI-generated faces might have expressions that don't align with the overall mood or emotion of the image.
Reverse Image Search:
Use tools like Google Images to search for the origin of the image and potentially identify AI-generated content through hashtags or source names.
Digital Artifacts:
Look for pixelation, strange color patterns, or blur in areas where it shouldn't logically be.
Unnatural Movements and Expressions:
AI videos may show jerky movements, stiffness, or facial expressions that seem off.
3. Other Indicators:
Lack of Real-World Understanding:
AI-generated content might lack a grasp of the broader context or specific details, and may make claims that don't align with reality.
Monotonous Tone and Flawless Grammar:
While AI-generated text can be grammatically perfect, it often has a robotic or monotonous tone.
Examine for Artifacts:
Zooming in on AI-generated images can reveal inconsistencies, misplaced shapes, or stray pixels.
4. Fact-Checking:
DW News Fact Check:
.
Use sources like DW News to learn how to spot AI-generated videos, particularly during breaking news events.
Don't Overly Rely on "How to Spot AI" Guides:
.
Be cautious of guides that promise easy identification, as these may be AI-generated themselves.
You can watch this video to learn how to tell if an image is fake content from AI:

[UpInArms]

102. You can teach a parrot words

But, you cannot teach the parrot what those words mean …

Am I on the right track?

[eShirl]

66. when the thread title is "I asked AI about X Y and Z, here's what it said:"

[John1956PA]

5. I appreciate posts which cite credible sources, not those which paste AI scrawls.

[SunSeeker]

37. Yes!! That is what drew me to DU, factual statements with cites. It's a dying art I guess. nt

[Peacetrain]

6. How does a person know if it is AI posting or not??

I haven't a clue

[Littlered]

9. I was wondering that very same thing.

[TommyT139]

86. I think people should disclose

...before the section they asked AI to write.

After all, we expect people to cite sources, especially when copying text verbatim, right? Why not with AI?

Someone up-thread pulled what reads to me like a "gotcha" by posting AI content and then later saying that it had been AI. That's a poster I won't read again. Sure it may have its uses, but I don't consent to interacting with robots.

Pro tip: you can usually go to your browser settings and deactivate the search engine's use of AI. Same with texting apps. Especially if you care about privacy.

[Alice Kramden]

106. "deactivate the search engine's use of AI"

I will have to try that - thanks for posting

[CrispyQ]

7. Not sure what you mean.

When I Google something & post the results, if I'm posting the "AI Overview" results, I note that, too. Is that what you mean or do you mean people are using AI to write their responses to our discussions here on DU?

[Mike 03]

12. Yes, and Google/Chrome AI Labs is excellent at providing sources, which often

lead to more interesting articles, etc...

So, in other words, Google Labs tells you where the information is coming from and links to it. I was anxious about AI too, until I began to use it. I use it most days for something. It's irritating to see a bunch of ignorant generalizations about AI. It depends on who is using it and for what.

A bigger concern is entire fake news websites that use AI to write articles. But so far they are so sloppy it's obvious, but they nevertheless represent a degeneration of AI.

[bamagal62]

62. I have never used AI.

Where would I even go to give it a try? I am completely clueless. I feel like the people on the Becoming Your Parents Progressive commercial. 😂

[Sympthsical]

13. It's been cropping up uncited

And while I appreciate people who do credit their summaries when they use it, it's still often something that isn't good information, lacks context, or can be misleading. It can be a great assistant or augmentation, but as a substitute there are a lot of pitfalls.

I'm not against AI really. I use it for various things as well. Just seems like a weird thing to do (uncited) when the object of the exercise is to express our own thoughts and ideas.

[Celerity]

84. +1

[Basso8vb]

10. Critical thinking is an endangered activity.

[Mike 03]

16. It's garbage in, garbage out.

In my limited experience, you need to think critically to use AI intelligently. Terrible AI could sometimes be the results of an incompetent user.

[Skittles]

90. I keep thinking of that song IN THE YEAR 2525

Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pill you took today

who needs pills when you have AI?

[Easterncedar]

14. AI is weak and weird in spots

I have heard positive stories from users having trouble personally drafting basic text who appreciate getting a rough draft from Chat GPT. But I googled a simple grammar question the other day, and the top suggestion, from google’s AI, was plain wrong. Just wrong. I can’t imagine how many people will be misled by this absurd thing.

Maybe the hallucinations of AI will return us to the golden age of reliance on edited authoritative printed information. Ha.

[Mike 03]

15. Is there any chance you could link to an example?

Sorry, I haven't seen this myself, but I'm curious as to what you are talking about.

[cadoman]

107. definitely think it's possible (probable?) but haven't seen it

Also, people who would use AI for that would train it to blend. AI isn't inherently a chirpy, agreeable persona like ChatGPT starts. It can be antagonistic or rude or anything that it's trained to do.

It's likely there are many AI personas here and we are not aware of them.

[MineralMan]

18. Can you link to an example?

I've not noticed any AI posts here, but I don't read everything posted on DU. So, if you have identified some posts as AI, I'd love to take a look at them.

[Sympthsical]

24. Call outs are disallowed

So figured it's better to just make a general statement on the matter.

[MineralMan]

25. I see. Well, OK.

How about bringing it up in the thread you believe to be written with AI? That is not prohibited.

Otherwise, your statement isn't supported by any actual content on DU. It's a dilemma, isn't it?

I'm not saying that nobody is using AI to create posts here. I don't know whether that is happening or not. But you claim that it is. So, I asked for some example I could look at.

[Kaleva]

35. Post #20 in this thread is AI according to post #21

[MineralMan]

38. I did see that. It's interesting.

I would not have identified the first of those two posts as AI. On the other hand, the OP of this thread has characteristics described as common in AI text, like the numbered list.

My point is, I guess, that identifying what is and is not AI generated isn't all that simple, really. And the AI generators are getting better all the time.

As someone who made a living from writing professionally between 1974 and 2020, I'm sure that some of my OPs might look like AI output. I use bullet points and lists frequently, and my posts are generally correctly spelled and grammatically correct. I do not use AI for anything, though. So, they would not be AI output.

It's all very interesting.

[Kaleva]

44. I wonder if DU will implement rules governing the use of AI

[MineralMan]

51. I doubt it. Since there is no reliable way to detect AI content,

it wouldn't make much sense to ban AI here. Again, some people write well. Some people don't. AI generally writes well, so that would be one of the suspect characteristics. But that would also attach to those who do write well on their own. Not a good thing.

Basically, I suspect we're going to see more and more AI content everywhere. As always, it's going to be up to the reader to check facts and verify what they read. Most people don't do that, and will continue not to, I suppose.

[Kaleva]

76. My AI generated response

The integration of AI into political forums presents significant challenges that threaten the very foundations of democracy. By banning AI in these spaces, we can safeguard the integrity of democratic processes, preserve human agency, and ensure the authenticity of political discourse. While technology continues to evolve and shape our world, it is imperative that we remain vigilant in protecting the core values of democracy. The future of political engagement should prioritize human connection and critical discourse over algorithmic manipulation. In doing so, we can foster a more informed, engaged, and empowered citizenry capable of navigating the complexities of modern governance.

[MineralMan]

82. Again, how do you identify AI content?

[Alice Kramden]

105. what if it was a stated rule (at DU), like "No AI-generated material," but kind of on the honor system?

Then, if AI material was suspected to be present, it could be alerted on?

[MineralMan]

110. Who decides?

Same objection. If you can't reliably identify AI content, how do you ban it?

[Alice Kramden]

111. Self disclosure, for one

I'm an admin for a WhatsApp group (unrelated to DU), and we have this rule. The written posts in question in this group were either self identified or, in the case of AI-produced images, pretty readily detectable.

[Sympthsical]

47. I have

There's a bit in my post history where I asked someone.

But usually I'm just skimming around on my phone and don't comment.

[MineralMan]

53. Yes, OK. Whatever you say.

I think you are missing my point, however. If you accuse people in general of using AI, without examples, then everyone is suspect, right? If you ask the person involved right in the thread, you make a point and will get some sort of answer. There's no way to answer your generalized posts, though.

Think about it for a little while, and you'll understand what I'm saying.

[Sympthsical]

60. My purpose is a general discussion

To see if people feel similarly when it comes to more personal social media interactions. Which is of interest since the use of AI is increasing in social media spaces, and it's a trend that will only grow more prominent over time.

I understand your point. No one "in general" is being accused, because most people - for the time being - don't use it. I don't think about it at all until I spot blatant use. But I'm also not a hall monitor. I'm not going to bounce around haranguing people when I see it. I save that sort of thing for friends who make bad relationship choices like a normal person.

[LAS14]

97. What do you mean when you say callouts are disallowed? nt

[Swede]

22. I prefer Heinz 57

[DFW]

33. That is another kind of AI altogether

Heinz 57 is Artificial Indigestion

[NJCher]

28. how can you tell?

I haven't paid much attention to it myself, so I don't have any standards.

If I was teaching research writing like I did for decades, I'm sure it would be a big issue.

What I mean is how can you tell someone used AI?

[Kaleva]

34. I can't tell either

[pansypoo53219]

29. its sad people need ai.

only class i 'cheated in'(i didn't need my cheat) was religion. wrote books of the bible on my #2.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. I think it is worse than weird, especially when not labelled explicitly as AI generated. . . . nt

[Nigrum Cattus]

39. Everyone should remember that when you use A.I. it's using you !

Every time you use any A.I. it is recording your actions to "learn".
A.I. = Teriminator

[WhiskeyGrinder]

40. I find it horrifying, myself.

[paleotn]

49. I'm getting to the point of calling for a "Butlerian Jihad."

https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad

My wife teaches grad students and is amazed how poorly they write....until they us AI. Grad students! Written communication skills are dying. Hate to sound like those old "kids will loose the ability to do math in their heads", anti-calculator types from my early days, but this is getting ridiculous.

[highplainsdem]

69. With you on that.

[blubunyip]

116. lose

not loose

[paleotn]

119. Aren't you a peach.

So you're the grammar police? Sue me.

[Niagara]

120. I was wondering how you were going to handle this rudeness

I think you did a fantastic job, paleotn!

[blubunyip]

122. ????

Humur seems ta bee lost on yalls aroun hear. OK I guess it's teh times. Everyboddie is so stresssed.

[Niagara]

124. I absolutely have a wicked sense of humor

What a Capricorns finds humorous, others do not. I have to watch myself because I unintentionally piss people off.


However, it's seriously impolite for adults to correct other adults. I have seen a few name and grammar mistakes and I've sent the person a private message to let them know because that's how adults treat each other. Adults don't embarrass other adults publicly.


We have some seriously fucked up people here that will correct others grammar and then the person that does all the correcting makes continuous grammar errors. They come off as very Trumpian.

If you happen to spot a grammar error, kindly let that person know in private. Thank you.

[blubunyip]

121. Its a JOKE !!

OK so I forgot the sarcasm smilie-- my bad

Sorry to trigger your knee-jerk reaction. Next time I'll look out for thems who likes to pile on

[paleotn]

123. No worries. The thing about the interwebs....

sometimes you can tell since there's no facial cues, body language and usually we don't know each other from Adam's off ox.

Spelling and grammar are not my thing. Not even close to my thing! My better half chuckles at me too sometimes. "How the hell did you think THAT was spelled correctly?!"

[LuckyCharms]

125. What was the joke?

Publicly correcting spelling or grammar is frowned upon here.

As it should be.

Why bother correcting someone if it is apparent what they meant?

I know a very rude public figure who also falls back on "it was a joke ", or "that was sarcasm".

[fujiyamasan]

52. I've never understood the use of AI in discussion forums

I use generative AI for limited use cases. It serves its purpose ok, but you have to know its limits and always verify.

But I kinda assume that if I’m posting something in a discussion forum, it’s with the intent and purpose of interacting with another human being.

[Figarosmom]

54. Maybe they are bots and should be reported

[Escape]

55. Well shit..

Now I am afraid to post anything clever here for fear of being accused of AI abuse.

(ps. I wouldn't know AI from E-I-E-I-O...)

[David__77]

57. It's great for people with learning disabilities that make spelling challenging.

[aggiesal]

58. I use A1 to evaluate my postings on different forums to see how accurate A1 thinks about what I'm thinking ...

Other than that, I will not use A1 for any other purpose.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

83. A1 sauce will jam up your keyboard, which you will have to replace because you can't clean it

"Education" Secretary Linda McMahon made the same mistake and was lampooned all over the internet about a month ago.

[aggiesal]

88. You didn't consider that I used A1 sarcastically? I thought that was obvious. ...

Now I'm think you are obviously being sarcastic as well.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

91. Sorry, I missed that it was sarcasm. My reply was a bit "tongue in cheek", yes. All good, thanks. . . . nt

[forgotmylogin]

59. I moderate a small forum, and we had to make a rule.

We required that AI excerpts need to cite the source like a blog/journal/newspaper article and we will ban accounts that are trying to fool people by "masquerading" as a human - since an AI cannot legally agree to the Terms of Service/code of conduct. If an AI offends someone, how do we moderate it? We can run text through an AI bot checker to tell how likely it was to have been AI generated, and you do get an ear for it - most AI structures every answer like a book report with an opening thesis, supporting statements, then a conclusion.

I think AI has its use. It's kind of like using Wikipedia where it's a good place to start from to get an overview about a subject, but then you track down sources and read more about it.

[Emile]

63. The AI I would worry about is the microchip

they'll put in our brain to control our thoughts.

[flashman13]

64. I would say that AI is just more over hyped nonsense like self driving cars.

I case you haven't noticed, the actual real car manufacturers have thrown in the towel on self driving cars.

[Sympthsical]

70. Waymo is increasingly popular in San Francisco

People were slow to adapt to it, afraid to try it, but now they're generally well thought of and I have friends who prefer it to dealing with a human drivers. It's interesting to observe.

Personally, I'm too skittish about that sort of thing. Particularly on a highway.

I do think the hype over-stepped the reality. The technology is still being worked on, and there was this idea that everything would be self-driving in 5-10 years. Which was completely unrealistic, and companies threw away a lot of money in all that hype.

I can see things like Waymo gaining more common use generationally. It just feels like one of those things that older people are extremely skeptical about, but those who grow up around the technology will become much less hesitant to use it.

And as far as, "We will replace truck drivers!" Yeah, maybe in 20 or 30 years. That shit is eight million lawsuits about to happen.

[highplainsdem]

71. LLMs - generative AI tools - are unethical, illegally trained tools that no one with any respect for

the creatives whose work was stolen to train the AI should EVER use, unless forced to do so by their job or school.

If you're fine with the theft of the world's knowledge and intellectual property because genAI makes some things more convenient for you, it says a lot about you, but none of it is good.

It dumbs down and deskills users. It discourages critical thinking and creativity.

It's been a wrecking ball taken to education.

It's good for fraud, whether students cheating or people of any age pretending to have knowledge, skills, talent and even basic ideas they don't have.

Good for criminal fraud, which it's used for a lot.

Good for deepfakes, including porn - a popular use of it.

Good for data gathering and surveillance, which it's in demand for, from businesses and governments alike. Good for increasing the power and control exerted by those businesses and governments.

It's bad for the environment, with some AI companies having given up on previous environmental goals while they hope that AI will somehow save us from destroying the planet.

It's bad for our information ecosystem, polluting it with AI slop.

It's being peddled to businesses as a way to replace workers, not help them or shorten work weeks, and you're hearing less and less from the AI bros about the need for a UBI.

And it absolutely does not belong on a message board, where the purpose is communication between humans, not bots.

[SheltieLover]

73. I couldn't agree more!

Well said.

Ai should b we illegal imo.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

112. .

[TheProle]

72. Serious and not disrespectful nor loaded question, but:

1. May or may not be accurate
2. May or may not give an answer that's even relevant to the topic being discussed
3. May or may not be actively misinforming

How is this different from a substantial number of memes and tweets/social media posts that get reposted here?

[Sympthsical]

75. I get you

I think it just bugs me more when it's person-to-person rather than general content, as if faking a conversation.

It'd be like going to lunch with a friend to catch up, and whenever you asked a question or made a comment, they held up their phone in reply. At that point, it's like why did you bother hanging out at all?

Dumb is just baked into the Internet. But low effort faking feels a little insulting.

[TheProle]

77. Understood and appreciated

[LAS14]

98. That's the key point. Is the AI "pretending" to be a person?

Or is it just gathering facts, or formatting a position?

[Alice Kramden]

103. could that kind of AI fake converstation be flagged for violation of Du rules?

I'm not sure whether it's in the rules - if not it should be

[sl8]

80. By those three criteria, it's not very different.

But, the AI posts I've noticed here were made with no indication that the words aren't those of the poster. That seems dishonest to me.

On the other hand, most of the social media posts I see here are pretty obviously not the work of the DU poster, even when they don't give explicit attribution to the original creator.

I do wish folks would be more careful to give accurate attribution for the material they post here, when possible, regardless of the source. I understand that sometimes it can be difficult to find the source and that's fine, but often it's trivially easy to find. Sometimes it seems like the poster just didn't bother to include the existing attribution in their cut & paste. I think I'm in the minority on this issue, though.

[Celerity]

85. All of that is part of the misinformation/disinformation arena, some of which is spewed out here.

The level of discernment on DU is far too often woeful (whether it is wilful or not I leave up to others to decide for themselves) at times.

[FakeNoose]

74. How does one post a link to an AI word salad?

That's what has me puzzled.

If the words aren't your own, you must have gotten them somewhere. DU posters are required to include the link to where they got it, and AI such as Google or Chat aren't recognized sources.

[sl8]

87. I'm not sure about the links.

Where did you see the DU requirement to provide links for material not your own? That would be pretty tough if you're quoting something from hardcopy media.

In any case, it's easy enough to give attribution to an AI generated piece. One easy way would be to use the DU "Excerpt" feature or even just quotation marks and preface the text with "Generated by Microsoft Copilot" or "Generated by Google Gemini" or something along those lines.

[FakeNoose]

104. Good suggestions, but not many people are doing that

[SouthBayDem]

81. Makes me miss the old days of spambots

Posting all sorts of unsolicited rated-R (NC-17?) material or malware-infected URLs.

Back when I was a kid experiencing stupid odd popups on my computer, I discovered a great informational website about what I was seeing: "Spyware, adware, malware, trojans, hijackers, and other Internet nuisances". That when GW Bush was in office! Luckily I still remember the URL from back then as the website was taken offline about 20 years ago.

[LAS14]

94. How do you know it's AI? nt

[JCMach1]

100. You don't, unless it is a 0 effort attempt

[LAS14]

101. I want to know if I'm dealing with an entity that cares what I say. By "care" I mean...

hates it, loves it, disagrees with it. But has an opinion. AI cannot have an opinion. It can spout things that sound like opinions, but it can't entertain an opinion.

[mucholderthandirt]

113. I thought I had one place that was safe from "AI" stupidity. Seems I was wrong.

Bye, DU, it was mostly good to know you. If this is allowed to continue, I'll be leaving. I hate "AI", it's all lies and stolen stuff, almost always wrong in every way. Anyone who can't write their own stuff, do their own research, has no right to post here.

[Delphinus]

115. VERY worrisome

And the timing of you bringing this up is great. Just this morning I read an article about AI and it said

As of last September, 57% of the internet was AI generated text.

It is an older story that came through a digest I receive; grateful it did because I missed it the first time around. Here's the link: https://medium.com/ai-ai-oh/the-one-and-only-reliable-way-to-spot-ai-today-ee4635bce44

The comments from teachers in other countries are enlightening as well.

[IcyPeas]

127. I'm still waiting for this:

(The author is a sci-fi and fantasy author)

[ecstatic]

128. It might be prevalent with trolls but I can't picture a regular poster going through

that much effort to respond to a post. By the time you are done prompting AI you could have already completed your post the old way. Not to mention, that would take all the fun out of message boards/forums.

But now that I think about it, I guess I could envision a scenario in which someone asks AI to clean up his/her post to make it grammatically correct, etc because we all know there are grammar / typo nazis here etc.

How about this: DU has been around for over 20 years. You could compare a user's old posts to posts made after mid-2024?

[EarlG]

129. I don't really understand the purpose of this OP

You have no way of knowing whether someone's post was written by AI or not. You say you do, but you don't. Nobody does. That's why they're having all these problems with ChatGPT in academia right now.

You know that this is true, because you've been careful not to single anybody out. If you singled someone out, you'd be committing a personal attack. That's because you have absolutely no way to prove that someone's post was written by AI, so you'd be making a completely unfounded accusation. Do we really want a DU where everyone can go around accusing each other of using AI to write posts? I don't. That would get old very fast.

So instead you've got this sort of vague finger-pointing OP where you're not singling anyone out for using AI, but you're just saying that "people" are doing it. I don't really understand how this is helpful to the community, since it just seems to be making a lot of DUers paranoid.

I am not a fan of generative AI at all. I think for the most part it's a bunch of bullshit that is only going to make people who rely on it dumber and dumber over time. But the die is cast -- the technology is here, and I can't write a rule to stop it because there is literally no way to prove that anybody is using AI to write their posts.

And yet, before the advent of AI, anybody on DU could ask a partner or friend to edit their posts for clarity and spelling. They could even ask a partner or friend to write an entire post for them. Nobody would have been any the wiser -- but knowing that it was possible didn't seem to bother anybody.

I believe that most people who participate in this community do it not just because they want to read, but because they have something they want to say. I don't use AI to write my posts because I've been writing posts on here for 25 years and I enjoy doing it. I like using my brain. I think that the vast, vast majority of DUers feel the same way.

So for most people, it's a choice. Do you choose to believe that other DUers you're interacting with here are writing their own posts because they have something to say and they want to participate in the community, or do you choose to believe that other DUers aren't really people, and that you should be on high alert at all times because you might be talking to an AI?

I choose to believe the former. I think people participate here because they like using their brains and enjoy the process of engaging in written communication. But the purpose of this OP seems to be to encourage people to believe the latter, and the result is that you've created a long thread full of anxiety and paranoia. Since I'll also choose to believe that it was not your intention to do that, I don't really get the purpose of the OP.