20
$\begingroup$

Over on Meta they recently announced a new option for individual sites to have a "AI-generated content" policy banner, offering several options:

We will initially offer two banner text options that all sites in the Stack Exchange network can opt-in to. Those options are the following:

Reminder: Answers generated by Artificial Intelligence tools are not allowed on [Site Name]. Learn more

Reminder: Answers generated by Artificial Intelligence tools must be cited on [Site Name]. Learn more

Do we wish to opt in?

$\endgroup$
15
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ For reference, our guideline is that computer-generated text breaks our community's expectations that a contribution will be substantially original, that non-original pieces are attributed appropriately, and that the content is respectful of our other users (including respectful of our other users' time). $\endgroup$
    – rob Mod
    Jan 5 at 18:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A banner discouraging answers using AI would be great but it would be even better if it just said "content". I've noticed more than a few questions of late that were of the form "Why is it the case that [false statement] is true? I asked ChatGPT about it and it said [false statement] and now I'm confused." $\endgroup$ Jan 5 at 19:23
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelSeifert - that would be a question for the mother Meta. This question is meant decide whether or not to implement what SE is providing. $\endgroup$
    – Jon Custer
    Jan 5 at 19:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Fair enough, that makes sense. For what it's worth, I posted my request as a response to the original posting over on Meta, and we'll see what they say about it. $\endgroup$ Jan 5 at 19:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Note that SO permits some questions about ChatGPT output. "asking a question (in your own words) about something that ChatGPT generated [...] is fine, provided the question is otherwise on-topic, and you attribute the source of the code". meta.stackoverflow.com/a/422440/4014959 OTOH, many SO regulars do not like questions of the form: "please debug this code that I didn't write and that I'm totally baffled by", no matter where the code comes from. $\endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    Jan 6 at 2:58
  • $\begingroup$ For years, I've sent myself many prospective PSE questions or answers that have often included bibliographical information, but it would be nice not to have to sweat the possibility that an idea appearing to me to be original might have actually been a nearly-verbatim idea that I'd read at some time in the past, which might itself have been AI-generated (regardless of whether whatever author had lifted it from its AI-generation had bothered to include such attribution): Consequently, I'd rather be spared such patent-office style work (I'm no Einstein), when wondering how reality operates. $\endgroup$
    – Edouard
    Jan 9 at 4:12
  • $\begingroup$ I mean, can't an outfit as global as PSE funnel such risks thru some locality (say, Mauritius or Reunion) where bureaucracy might serve to raise the standard of living? – Edouard $\endgroup$
    – Edouard
    Jan 9 at 5:31
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Edouard What? – AccidentalFourierTransform $\endgroup$ Jan 9 at 15:55
  • $\begingroup$ @AccidentalFourierTransform--sorry; I don't understand your question to me. It appeared to me through the Biology SE site, and consisted only of the expression "What?". My "request for clarification" had been an inquiry as to whether routine verifications of the originality of questions (or answers) might not be accomplished more efficiently in a locality where a reasonably well-educated population (especially that of Reunion; Mauritisu is already prosperous) could do the same kind of intellectual legwork as Einstein was accomplishing during his time spent in the Swiss patent office. $\endgroup$
    – Edouard
    Jan 9 at 16:12
  • $\begingroup$ I may be more aware of the global nature of SE because I catch a streetcar, a few times every week, across the st. from one of its North American offices. $\endgroup$
    – Edouard
    Jan 9 at 16:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is it feasible to ban AI content, though, considering you can intermix human and AI texts together? $\endgroup$ Jan 9 at 20:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ When will the banner get added? $\endgroup$
    – Ghoster
    Jan 12 at 18:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Edouard It appeared to me through the Biology SE site The Inbox displays notifications from all SE sites. The fact that you were on Biology SE at the time that you noticed a notification from Physics Meta SE is not surprising at all. $\endgroup$
    – Ghoster
    Jan 27 at 6:34
  • $\begingroup$ Assuming that the "banner" would be a "ban" on AI, I'd think that it might be a good idea, as far as the preservation of earth's currently dominant species is concerned: However, there's plainly some possibility that reality might, over colossal spans of time (sort of like Poincare recurrence on steroids), consist (at least locally) of an alternation between biological and cybernetic forms of life. The relation between them might be expressible in terms of that bi-directionality in time which (unlike space) it currently seems to lack. Or maybe I read Capek's "R.U.R." at too tender an age. $\endgroup$
    – Edouard
    Jan 28 at 8:26
  • $\begingroup$ Answers may not be AI generated, but questions and comments can? Wouldn't 'Content' be a better word? $\endgroup$
    – user121330
    Jan 31 at 20:59

2 Answers 2

49
$\begingroup$

For voting purposes to determine a consensus:

Yes we should add a banner.

My personal preference is the first (not allowed), but we could discuss on a separate Meta question if needed.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ agreed that it should not be allowed. $\endgroup$ Jan 5 at 21:52
  • $\begingroup$ I guess its too late... but it would have made more sense to do upvote for yes downvote for no (then try to guess the outcome and have upvote be the one you anticipate will win so your reputation doesn't take a hit). As it stands we have some people just upvoting one of them, and some people upvoting one then down voting the other. $\endgroup$
    – AXensen
    Jan 5 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ @AXensen It's upvote/downvote of a "community wiki" so I don't think anyone's reputation is going to "take a hit." $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Jan 6 at 0:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AXensen Voting is different on Meta in any case. $\endgroup$
    – rob Mod
    Jan 6 at 4:34
  • $\begingroup$ I think physics stack should go with the first option. $\endgroup$ Jan 6 at 15:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you know why the banner hasn’t been added? $\endgroup$
    – Ghoster
    May 10 at 16:33
  • $\begingroup$ This is my first comment. I think PSE is a very valuable resource and find the thought of ai generated content on the site dismaying. My half a cent :-/. I would support a banner. $\endgroup$
    – Nf23kdr
    Jun 4 at 15:12
-15
$\begingroup$

For voting purposes to determine a consensus:

No we should not add a banner.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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