TOS Question: ChatGPT

[sixty_reefer]

Obviously if rev talked to the person it was disclosed as AI or not and he would have probably stated as much if it was not.
I personally dont think AI would be all that bad. It just seems strange that someone with no idea on the subject would use it to sound as if they do know something using it. It seem obvious to many with layout and the answers themselves this is a copy and paste AI response. I am sure they didnt mean harm but still. I know a little about a lot of stupid stuff when I post answers in a forum like this I sometime fact check myself before I hit the post button if I am way off base ill delete the post but will not post the fact checked info as it may also be incorrect.

It wasn’t disclosed to my knowledge, this thread lead to folks reporting it as such. Rev closed his account to try and figure out if it was a person or a bot and later revealed as a person just trying to help to no surprise.

There is no confirmation yet if AI was used to my knowledge

 

[sixty_reefer]

I responded to this statement of yours with comments specifically addressed to the issue you posted:

I’m just emphasising the precedent that it brings as we often use other websites in discussions. I may have to think twice before I post a link to an article from here on now.

Still don’t see the point, sorry

 

[Tamberav]

I'm not really all that familiar with AI for solving aquarium issues, but I did run some basic tests to see how it fares:

Using AI Resources to Treat Fish Diseases

This is a preliminary article on using AI (ChatGPT) to diagnose and/or treat marine fish diseases.

www.reef2reef.com

My main issue is that I have a 300 page aquarium disease manuscript ready for publication, but AI may scuttle the entire project (ugh).

Jay

Reading the AI response made me cringe.

 

[Schulks]

There is no confirmation yet if AI was used to my knowledge

I do believe it is obvious because he introduced himself a week ago. He wouldn't have all this knowledge or more importantly experience. The responses look ai he just went through to take out the parts that made it obvious .

 

[Reefer Matt]

Another rhetorical question to ask is what’s more important? The delivery method of the info, or if it’s actually correct? Is it worse to quote ChatGPT and have correct info, or provide a personal opinion that is not?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Still don’t see the point, sorry

Well, I see little point in repeating it. Sorry you do not understand.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I do believe it is obvious because he introduced himself a week ago. He wouldn't have all this knowledge or more importantly experience. The responses look ai he just went through to take out the parts that made it obvious .

I could give another user that gives similar answers to that, he’s been doing it way before Ai was invented.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Another rhetorical question to ask is what’s more important? The delivery method of the info, or if it’s actually correct? Is it worse to quote ChatGPT and have correct info, or provide a personal opinion that is not?

In my opinion, it’s simple. Don’t post anything unless you believe it is true, or if you do not know, then post where it came from so people do not mistakenly think it is your opinion.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Another rhetorical question to ask is what’s more important? The delivery method of the info, or if it’s actually correct? Is it worse to quote ChatGPT and have correct info, or provide a personal opinion that is not?

Allegedly if Ai was used and the answer is correct I don’t see a problem with it personally.

 

[Schulks]

I could give another user that gives similar answers to that, he’s been doing it way before Ai was invented.

He has been doing it a long time is the key there. This user started saltwater last month lol.

 

[sixty_reefer]

In my opinion, it’s simple. Don’t post anything unless you believe it is true, or if you do not know, then post where it came from so people do not mistakenly think it is your opinion.

How would this differ from an article? Most folks post articles as they believe it’s true.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

How would this differ from an article? Most folks post articles as they believe it’s

Before posting, do this:

1. Do I personally have reason to believe this info is accurate? (I have seen it myself, heard it from a trusted source, read it in a trusted journal, etc)

2. If #1 fails, then tell people where it came from.


In your case, if you have reason to trust the article, then just post it. No one has ever suggested folks should do more than that. I do this very often.

If you have reason to distrust the article, either don’t post or post and say you think it may be sketchy but… (I rarely do this, but have to highlight disagreements).

If you do not know if it is accurate, or for ANY reason think folks might want to know more, post the source. I do that many times every day.

 

[Reefer Matt]

In my opinion, it’s simple. Don’t post anything unless you believe it is true, or if you do not know, then post where it came from so people do not mistakenly think it is your opinion.

I agree with that. However, that can also feed into the belief (by some) that members should be vetted before they answer questions. Such as having only recognized experts respond. I have learned that very few things in reefing are absolute, the rest is experience and opinion.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I agree with that. However, that can also feed into the belief (by some) that members should be vetted before they answer questions. Such as having only recognized experts respond. I have learned that very few things in reefing are absolute, the rest is experience and opinion.

Well, I’ve never suggested that.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I agree with that. However, that can also feed into the belief (by some) that members should be vetted before they answer questions. Such as having only recognized experts respond. I have learned that very few things in reefing are absolute, the rest is experience and opinion.

It’s a good thought, just the end of forums as we know it.
I’ve seen one forum that took that as a rule, they out of business nowadays.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I’m just emphasising the precedent that it brings as we often use other websites in discussions. I may have to think twice before I post a link to a article from here on now.

How about this -- The forum itself is run by responsible human beings that can make decisicisons on what they deem acceptable behavior and content. No TOS or rule or policy is ever perfect or fits every situation. So be glad that the site is not AI moderated.

If you want to obtusely believe that the intent from the staff, owners, moderators or ANY human participating in this conversation wants to ban you for posting content you found that may be helpful... then I will assume you don't reason very well and if that were the case, you would have been banned long ago.

 

[sixty_reefer]

How about this -- The forum itself is run by responsible human beings that can make decisicisons on what they deem acceptable behavior and content. No TOS or rule or policy is ever perfect or fits every situation. So be glad that the site is not AI moderated.

If you want to obtusely believe that the intent from the staff, owners, moderators or ANY human participating in this conversation wants to ban you for posting content you found that may be helpful... then I will assume you don't reason very well.

Can you expand on that?

 

[Reefer Matt]

It’s a good thought, just the end of forums as we know it.
I’ve seen one forum that took that as a rule, they out of business nowadays.

The idea already exists in blogs. They could add them on this forum, but it would be a lot of work for the blog owner to answer questions. It could be a full time job in itself. A forum format allows the public to answer their own questions. The only drawback is we get a lot of varying opinions to sift through.

 

[sixty_reefer]

The idea already exists in blogs. They could add them on this forum, but it would be a lot of work for the blog owner to answer questions by themself. It could be a full time job in itself. A forum format allows the public to answer their own questions. The only drawback is we get a lot of varying opinions to sift through.

Folks are here to interact with other folks that have similar interests, most questions don’t require expert interaction and if it did it would reduce traffic to the site. May as well just ask chat gpt no need to come here.

My answer comes from experience I’ve seen what happening here in another forum, would be a shame to see it going downhill

 

[sixty_reefer]

Before posting, do this:

1. Do I personally have reason to believe this info is accurate? (I have seen it myself, heard it from a trusted source, read it in a trusted journal, etc)

2. If #1 fails, then tell people where it came from.


In your case, if you have reason to trust the article, then just post it. No one has ever suggested folks should do more than that. I do this very often.

If you have reason to distrust the article, either don’t post or post and say you think it may be sketchy but… (I rarely do this, but have to highlight disagreements).

If you do not know if it is accurate, or for ANY reason think folks might want to know more, post the source. I do that many times every day.

Articles don’t have all the answers, as a expert contributor you should know that.