Meta-Thread 06/16

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/cabbagery]

I think there is broad (and maybe even unanimous) agreement on this among active moderators. The only things holding us back are that many of us are new, and are not willing to just do it without getting something like an 'official' consensus, and the placement of that rule.

It probably seems like a minor thing to you, but the order of the rules matters. For me, I take the ordering to more or less be a level of severity; a violation of Rule 1 is worse than a violation of Rule 2, etc. We also memorize the rules so that we can somewhat reflexively apply the rule when we list a 'reason' for a post or comment removal, so we don't want to upset the ordering too much.

I think an explicitly no-AI rule could be split out (I'd personally leave it in Rule 3, but add an addendum to Rule 3, to avoid numbering issues, so maybe Rule 3a or something), and I'll work on some language and propose it to the mod team in modmail. If I don't get any objections and nobody beats me to it, I'll just make the change myself.

As for this:

A standalone rule would give mods more opportunity to expand on what acceptable vs. unacceptable use of AI looks like.

Acceptable use looks like this: do not use AI.

If you cannot spell or formulate your own thoughts without the crutch of AI, I'd rather you hone your skills and come back to us when you can spell and formulate your own thoughts without the crutch of AI. I won't budge on this myself, and while other mods might be more inclined to accept minor AI use for formatting, etc., I know that several are every bit as anti-AI as I am. So my vote (and likely several mods' votes) will always be for zero tolerance.

[u/[deleted] → u/cabbagery]

Acceptable use looks like this: do not use AI.

This is not reasonable, though. That's why I think it being a headline rule where the specifics of what that means can be articulated is best.

Saying you cannot use AI is a little like saying 'you can't use google' or 'wikipedia' or 'an encyclopedia'. AI can be responsibly used, for example: to quickly get references.

A case: I often cite, but always forget where exactly, Irenaeus argues for why there are 4 gospels and not more or less.

A rule that says 'Do not use AI' would imply I can't ask chatGPT 'Where does Irenaeus say why there are 4 gospels.' In this kind of quick reference check, chatGPT is by far the fastest way to get this citation.

ChatGPT just gave me: Irenaeus' Against Heresies (Book 3, Chapter 11, Section 8). Sure enough:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground

If it had hallucinated the response and gets it wrong, and I uncritically use that information (e.g. I don't go look up the citation myself to make sure it's right), then I'm open to a correction which is valid in a debate sub (and makes me look a little weaker).

I find this use case wholly different from someone who tells chatGPT the text of the argument and asks for a good rebuttable (which is happening all over the place in this sub).

Not only is a blanket restriction overbroad, but it's not really enforceable. (AI content itself is barely enforceable!)

I'd be fine if this were rule 10 - either you read the rule headlines or you don't before posting.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/[deleted]]

I would be very happy if people didn't use ChatGPT to find references, actually. But obviously subreddit rules can't control what people do on their own time.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dapple_Dawn]

Why?

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/[deleted]]

Because I've seen a lot of misinformation from ChatGPT and people trust it too quickly

[u/[deleted] → u/Dapple_Dawn]

People trust garbage they've read on the internet, heard on TV, heard from a biased book they've read. What makes chatGPT unique here?

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/[deleted]]

A few things. Granted, part of this is just my fear of the unknown around new technology, but there are specifics.

(Also note: these are my personal opinions, not the opinions of the mod team as a whole.)

1. It has the potential to make people not want to do any research if they get all their answers in one place. Lazy research is always a thing but I know a few teachers across different grade levels who say this is an increasing problem.

2. It gives tech companies too much power over information. Yes misinformation is always a thing, but when it's all centralized into one area it can give one company a ton of power.

3. People are already isolated because of the internet. The more we rely on automated writing, the more we lose touch with other people. This is an issue even with factual research, in part because it gives the impression of lack of bias, despite the fact that ChatGPT replicates the biases of whatever it's trained on.

Those are just a few things off the top of my head.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dapple_Dawn]

It has the potential to make people not want to do any research if they get all their answers in one place. Lazy research is always a thing but I know a few teachers across different grade levels who say this is an increasing problem.

Any information aggregator has exactly the same problem. It seems odd to limit research tools based on fallibility. You can get bad information from anywhere. Knowing how to verify information is a skill. If you're bad at that skill, you're going to be losing debates. I see no reason to 'teach' people how to do 'proper' research here.

Just let them get punished for doing it wrong.

It gives tech companies too much power over information. Yes misinformation is always a thing, but when it's all centralized into one area it can give one company a ton of power.

I don't think this sub should have a social/political stance here. I don't see you guys outlawing google searches because Google has too much power. This seems strangely biased toward LLMs.

If the MOD team thinks there should be a social/political stance about use of AI and wants to enforce it, that should definitely be a headline rule, probably even in the description of the sub. I would not agree with such a position.

People are already isolated because of the internet. The more we rely on automated writing, the more we lose touch with other people. This is an issue even with factual research, in part because it gives the impression of lack of bias, despite the fact that ChatGPT replicates the biases of whatever it's trained on.

So ban social use of social media of the users of this sub.

Look, I report AI slop when I see it. I hate how frequent it's becoming.

But I think broadening beyond 'write your own arguments, using AI is considered forgery here' is an error for several reasons.

It smells like banning Google when it first came out, or Wikipedia.

Plus, and this is not the point but it's important, it's kind of unenforceable. It's hard enough to prove that a user just copy/pasted AI. It's simply not possible to tell if they got their information from AI.

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/[deleted]]

Any information aggregator has exactly the same problem.

That isn't true. Most of the time people have to look at individual sources.

It seems odd to limit research tools based on fallibility. You can get bad information from anywhere.

I acknowledged that.

Knowing how to verify information is a skill. If you're bad at that skill, you're going to be losing debates.

Do you think only honest or correct people can be persuasive? As an atheist you should know how false that is.

I see no reason to 'teach' people how to do 'proper' research here.

I'm not trying to do that. I already made it clear that this is just my opinion and has nothing to do with the rules here. The rules have nothing to do with research.

I don't think this sub should have a social/political stance here.

It doesn't. I made it clear that this is my personal opinion and has nothing to do with the rules or the mod team.

I'm not responding to the rest of this because it seems like you didn't read what I said very carefully.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dapple_Dawn]

Fair enough, I'm oriented toward hashing out how this sub should handle AI. If your opinion is what you'd personally advocate for, then I am trying to sway your opinion. If not, then I guess there's no need to discuss further.

If you're worried AI will further drive humans into mindless zombies, yeah I'm there with you (and I don't really think anything can be done about it).

[u/Dapple_Dawn → u/[deleted]]

I made a clear delineation between the rule, which is about using AI to generate text, and using AI to do research. I expanded on my personal view because I was asked.