4

What is our policy on AI generated answers, questions, comments? Here are reasons EL&U has banned it, as have the following and more, mostly for the general lack of ?possible attribution, abuse, and nonsense/LQ answers that appear somewhat authoritative:

I agree with this ban for our purposes and would like to open the question here in hopes that we adopt/promote a policy before it (AI) adopts us. C'est La Jetée.

Almost a year after posing this question, what is the policy? Do we vote, agree, or is there an edict from the top on any such consensus?

0

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4

I do not see a reason AI should not be banned on French Language Stack Exchange. It is neither an enthusiast nor expert in any content area, nor can it prove that it serves a higher purpose (such as an authentic or authoritative furthering) of research in any content area other than AI.

It's a hammer.

It's pretty good at looking like it makes sense, conversationally, some of the time, which was not much more a reason than keeping ELIZA a bot or Watson (Jeopardy!) off of sites like SE at the time. Watson did cite its sources or rather collected them.

Then it beat every Jeopardy! champion ever, including the current host*. After the novelty wore off (about 15 minutes), no one wanted to play that tournament, and the game was painful to watch. It was over a decade ago. Look it up. No one is having fun.

Well, the loser now hosts it. Is that the goal? I guess it's still on the the air.

To be clear, they built that supercomputer just for trivia on the that game show.

This isn't a game (yes it's gamified), but a resource that people as learners and experts alike are trying to build, and AI like ChatGTP makes that painful to watch. It's anathema. There's no one to pay no attention to the no man behind the curtain.

It does every user a disservice to find it "cite" a mashup of AI returns with no person asking genuine or researched (defined as "good") content area questions and no person caring enough to answer them more than via plagiarism (of whom, another issue). The AI not infallible, but how is it credible? It's perhaps supposed to be a tool, but too many people see it only as a hammer. That makes us nails.

I've yet to interface with it because I do not care to register for it, and I've seen it coming. Living long enough to see something become this exponential degree of Turing complete is another event horizon. I do welcome other opinions or can post a wiki for a different point of view.

Especially in SE, curated and moderated "by you," this is not what I want to see. I want to see enthusiasts return a library book even this late (obviously for the fine, er joy... seriously @Jeff the library needs it more than 288).

It's later than you think.

P.S.: Ken Jennings is doing an even better job than I could have imagined. Did imagine. Good job.

3

For my money, it should be banned here too for all of the above reasons.

Moreover, from a humanistic point of view, the ban should be permanent. Our goal should be to advance knowledge or direct people to authoritative sources, not repackage it, often poorly and always without citation or understanding of the source.

-2

AI like ChatGTP is a credible research tool and acceptable resource for asking and answering questions by learners, experts, and enthusiasts on French Language Stack Exchange.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .