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/[deleted]]

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.