The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Whiskey]

The HoH could never put together a coherent post. That in of itself is the biggest giveaway. Like, the HoH is literally retarded, so fyi moving forward mods.

What is this post about? Hound?

[malkie]

Don't take anything I say in the AI thread personally. What you're witnessing is me dismantling the bullsxxt narrative of the idiotic Marxist on the board. I do it in my own personal way and it's very effective.

Again, you're not my target. Not at all.

Got it, and understand.

I would ask though, do you really think anybody really cares about MGs alledged AI use? I don’t think the point is an attempt to regulate use of AI, it’s about exposing the obfuscation, evasiveness, goalpost-shifting, and other strategies MG uses.

AI, as MG has said himself, “makes it faster and saves time (paraphrased).” I think that is the underlying issue and objection to his use of AI.

His use of AI only reinforces the underlying issue, which is about the nature and transparency of engagement.

The problem didn't start with MG. It is clear, however, why it has developed into an MG-related issue.

Without going back and reading posts in several topics, I think I can reasonably well sum up the point of the "no AI" rule.

This is supposed to be a discussion board where people exchange opinions, and defend their points of view.

Initially, when several posters (probably including me) started to include AI-generated content, it became clear that some posters were:

• not saying that they were using AI - possibly problematic
• not reading, understanding, and validating AI-gen'd content
• not being clear about how they obtained the content - mostly related to how they prompted the AI

One of the first attempts to regulate AI use to better fit with the purpose of the board included proposed rules - if you include AI-gen'd content, you must:

• show the complete prompt
• indicate what parts of your post were AI
• include your own thoughts about the matter
• not make a simple word-change paraphrase, and pass it off as your own
  I'd suggested, I believe, using OWL at Purdue as a model for creating content that you could legitimately call your own, in the same way as you might use content from any other source without plagiarizing: Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing

However, it soon became clear that this was not working, and Dr Shades, in his wisdom, created an AI rule that specified that AI content was permitted only in this thread.

Over a period of months, as posters employed workarounds - some probably innocent (that, of course, would apply to anything I did - right?), and some, perhaps, simple wool-pulling exercises, the rules were progressively made more specific and strict.

In the end (assuming it has ended - TBD), Shades found that he needed to be more and specific about how MG used AIs. In MG's defence, I think this may have occurred because MG was more ingenious in finding loopholes than the rest of us. However, some posters have eventually concluded that MG is just not willing to follow even the letter of the law, never mind the spirit.

MG has expressed several times the thought that he is being unfairly targeted, and that other posters' AI use is being permitted while he is still restricted. I've already given my opinion on this topic, as have others.

Other posters - especially MG - may remember or interpret things differently, of course, and I'm interested in anyone's additions and corrections to my take.

[Hound of Heaven]

The HoH could never put together a coherent post. That in of itself is the biggest giveaway. Like, the HoH is literally retarded, so fyi moving forward mods.

What is this post about? Hound?

Ah yess!!! You totally caught on to DrCamnPP's need for the spotlight, didn't you! In the past year, I've been on a mission to turn DrCamnPP into a discussion board superstar! If you check out his recent posts compared to a year ago, you'll notice they lack images and are usually just a sentence or two. And I didn't even hit him with a bill for the lesson!

He can thank me later







Also, what you're picking up on is a hilarious attempt to win over the moderators with sheer desperation! He’s convinced I’m some sort of AI bot, and he’s practically sweating bullets trying to get me booted from the discussion board. I guess he’s not a fan of having someone around who can call out his bullxxit! He's beginning to notice that the walls are inching closer, and he's becoming claustrophobic. Is that the vibe you're catching?

[Marcus]

The HoH could never put together a coherent post...

I'll have to agree with you there. After posting the SAME limnor post, THREE times, he posted this:

...All three post above are post from Limnor

Grammar was apparently trying hard to hint to H his coherency was at risk, as evidenced by the final, singular "post", but Grammar gave up, refusing to even add a final period.

(I tried to find Victor Borge phonetically punctuating a period, thinking H might be helped, but none were available. Maybe this one is more his speed.)

[Whiskey]

Is that the vibe you're catching?

Sorta.

The vibe is that the core group of posters that the cabal of Poster Posters (panny, Schmo, Cammy, Wangy, Marcus and Gaddy, among others) are more than happy to post about posters, no matter the topic. But, when anyone else points out that they are posting about other members in every goddamn thread, they start pointing to other posters' other rule violations.

With respect, you are a Poster Poster too. Always posting about the Poster Posters. Your explanation of what you are doing — holding up a mirror — cracks me up. Honestly and sincerely, the Poster Poster Cabal should give you an 2025 Honorable Mention trophy for talking about them better than they talk about you. You are way better at it than they are.

[Whiskey]

Got it, and understand.

I would ask though, do you really think anybody really cares about MGs alledged AI use? I don’t think the point is an attempt to regulate use of AI, it’s about exposing the obfuscation, evasiveness, goalpost-shifting, and other strategies MG uses.

AI, as MG has said himself, “makes it faster and saves time (paraphrased).” I think that is the underlying issue and objection to his use of AI.

His use of AI only reinforces the underlying issue, which is about the nature and transparency of engagement.

The problem didn't start with MG. It is clear, however, why it has developed into an MG-related issue.

Without going back and reading posts in several topics, I think I can reasonably well sum up the point of the "no AI" rule.

This is supposed to be a discussion board where people exchange opinions, and defend their points of view.

Initially, when several posters (probably including me) started to include AI-generated content, it became clear that some posters were:

• not saying that they were using AI - possibly problematic
• not reading, understanding, and validating AI-gen'd content
• not being clear about how they obtained the content - mostly related to how they prompted the AI

One of the first attempts to regulate AI use to better fit with the purpose of the board included proposed rules - if you include AI-gen'd content, you must:

• show the complete prompt
• indicate what parts of your post were AI
• include your own thoughts about the matter
• not make a simple word-change paraphrase, and pass it off as your own
  I'd suggested, I believe, using OWL at Purdue as a model for creating content that you could legitimately call your own, in the same way as you might use content from any other source without plagiarizing: Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing

However, it soon became clear that this was not working, and Dr Shades, in his wisdom, created an AI rule that specified that AI content was permitted only in this thread.

Over a period of months, as posters employed workarounds - some probably innocent (that, of course, would apply to anything I did - right?), and some, perhaps, simple wool-pulling exercises, the rules were progressively made more specific and strict.

In the end (assuming it has ended - TBD), Shades found that he needed to be more and specific about how MG used AIs. In MG's defence, I think this may have occurred because MG was more ingenious in finding loopholes than the rest of us. However, some posters have eventually concluded that MG is just not willing to follow even the letter of the law, never mind the spirit.

MG has expressed several times the thought that he is being unfairly targeted, and that other posters' AI use is being permitted while he is still restricted. I've already given my opinion on this topic, as have others.

Other posters - especially MG - may remember or interpret things differently, of course, and I'm interested in anyone's additions and corrections to my take.

Interesting post. Thanks.

There is a lot to unpack here.

I don't engage much with MG and typically avoid the upper forums out of respect for a few posters up there. I think everyone knows I have DCP fatigue and really can't add anything to the discussion.

That said — I don't consider this thread much about LDS Terrestrial things, apologetics and the typical topics we see from Scratch.

Bluntly - MG may be using AI, and he may not. Looks like he is. If he is, good for him. He should use it more and not invest much in conversations that are often derailed to be conversations about him, not the OP or thread topic. If AI clogs it up after it got clogged up, so be it. The solution to AI conversations is not more rules, name calling, attacks and moderator intervention. It is more engaging relevant material that makes people want to write. If "FU" is off the table. And reasonable conversation is off the table. And if the actual topic is off the table. Why not just clog it up with AI?

Simply put — want less AI? Write better and engage better.

[Marcus]

Got it, and understand.

I would ask though, do you really think anybody really cares about MGs alledged AI use? I don’t think the point is an attempt to regulate use of AI, it’s about exposing the obfuscation, evasiveness, goalpost-shifting, and other strategies MG uses.

AI, as MG has said himself, “makes it faster and saves time (paraphrased).” I think that is the underlying issue and objection to his use of AI.

His use of AI only reinforces the underlying issue, which is about the nature and transparency of engagement.

The problem didn't start with MG. It is clear, however, why it has developed into an MG-related issue.

Without going back and reading posts in several topics, I think I can reasonably well sum up the point of the "no AI" rule.

This is supposed to be a discussion board where people exchange opinions, and defend their points of view.

Initially, when several posters (probably including me) started to include AI-generated content, it became clear that some posters were:

• not saying that they were using AI - possibly problematic
• not reading, understanding, and validating AI-gen'd content
• not being clear about how they obtained the content - mostly related to how they prompted the AI

One of the first attempts to regulate AI use to better fit with the purpose of the board included proposed rules - if you include AI-gen'd content, you must:

• show the complete prompt
• indicate what parts of your post were AI
• include your own thoughts about the matter
• not make a simple word-change paraphrase, and pass it off as your own
  I'd suggested, I believe, using OWL at Purdue as a model for creating content that you could legitimately call your own, in the same way as you might use content from any other source without plagiarizing: Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing

However, it soon became clear that this was not working, and Dr Shades, in his wisdom, created an AI rule that specified that AI content was permitted only in this thread.

Over a period of months, as posters employed workarounds - some probably innocent (that, of course, would apply to anything I did - right?), and some, perhaps, simple wool-pulling exercises, the rules were progressively made more specific and strict.

In the end (assuming it has ended - TBD), Shades found that he needed to be more and specific about how MG used AIs. In MG's defence, I think this may have occurred because MG was more ingenious in finding loopholes than the rest of us. However, some posters have eventually concluded that MG is just not willing to follow even the letter of the law, never mind the spirit.

MG has expressed several times the thought that he is being unfairly targeted, and that other posters' AI use is being permitted while he is still restricted. I've already given my opinion on this topic, as have others.

Other posters - especially MG - may remember or interpret things differently, of course, and I'm interested in anyone's additions and corrections to my take.

Well stated Malkie. Speaking of TBD as to whether it has ended, you'll notice Shades caught MG utilizing yet another loophole and had to give yet another even more agitated reminder just two days ago:

...Take time to give! If not through this means, find a way to give a serve/give. Tis the season!
[link to A.I.-generated content deleted]

...
Damn it, MG 2.0, Gemini is A.I.!! How many times have I told you ***NOT*** to link to, post from, use, utilize, think about, or acknowledge the existence of A.I. while participating on this message board??

TWELFTH REMINDER: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DOES NOT EXIST. YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT. YOU WILL NEVER, EVER USE IT. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE. THERE ARE NO LOOPHOLES TO THIS RULE. THERE ARE NO WORK-AROUNDS TO THIS RULE.

Shades has stated that Mg has not yet had the number of chances Ludwigm had, when asked why he's allowed to continue breaking rules. And since Shades also said Ludwigm had 'infinitely more chances' than mg has had before he was banned, we may never find a resolution. Or Shades is unaware of the definition of infinity. One or the other.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

That’s fair. AI mimics human patterns, therefore any human who successfully uses patterns is at risk of being classified as AI. Seems logical.

Yeah, no sxxt! Too bad the Marxist on the board don't understand.

Please understand, im not criticizing you.



Dr.Cam started this! I'm just finishing it!

Sir, what is this bloody nonsense, haan? I am telling you, this fuckkng AI post passing, Sirs, it is not good, not good at all, haan! Every time I come here, I see this and that, bloody this and fuckkng that, Sirs, all people writing like robot, like machine, haan! Are you thinking we are all blind, Sirs? No, no, no! This is serious problem, Sirs, serious, haan! You take AI output, you put your name, you call it your post, Sirs, what is this? This is cheating, Sirs, bloody cheating, haan! And people are clapping, liking, giving karma, haan! You think this is small joke, Sirs? No, no, no! My patience is finished, Sirs, finished, haan! Stop this bloody AI copying, stop this fuckkng nonsense, Sirs, or I will come with full rant, haan! This and that, bloody this and that, Sirs, I am not joking, haan!

[malkie]

The problem didn't start with MG. It is clear, however, why it has developed into an MG-related issue.

Without going back and reading posts in several topics, I think I can reasonably well sum up the point of the "no AI" rule.

This is supposed to be a discussion board where people exchange opinions, and defend their points of view.

Initially, when several posters (probably including me) started to include AI-generated content, it became clear that some posters were:

• not saying that they were using AI - possibly problematic
• not reading, understanding, and validating AI-gen'd content
• not being clear about how they obtained the content - mostly related to how they prompted the AI

One of the first attempts to regulate AI use to better fit with the purpose of the board included proposed rules - if you include AI-gen'd content, you must:

• show the complete prompt
• indicate what parts of your post were AI
• include your own thoughts about the matter
• not make a simple word-change paraphrase, and pass it off as your own
  I'd suggested, I believe, using OWL at Purdue as a model for creating content that you could legitimately call your own, in the same way as you might use content from any other source without plagiarizing: Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing

However, it soon became clear that this was not working, and Dr Shades, in his wisdom, created an AI rule that specified that AI content was permitted only in this thread.

Over a period of months, as posters employed workarounds - some probably innocent (that, of course, would apply to anything I did - right?), and some, perhaps, simple wool-pulling exercises, the rules were progressively made more specific and strict.

In the end (assuming it has ended - TBD), Shades found that he needed to be more and specific about how MG used AIs. In MG's defence, I think this may have occurred because MG was more ingenious in finding loopholes than the rest of us. However, some posters have eventually concluded that MG is just not willing to follow even the letter of the law, never mind the spirit.

MG has expressed several times the thought that he is being unfairly targeted, and that other posters' AI use is being permitted while he is still restricted. I've already given my opinion on this topic, as have others.

Other posters - especially MG - may remember or interpret things differently, of course, and I'm interested in anyone's additions and corrections to my take.

Interesting post. Thanks.

There is a lot to unpack here.

I don't engage much with MG and typically avoid the upper forums out of respect for a few posters up there. I think everyone knows I have DCP fatigue and really can't add anything to the discussion.

That said — I don't consider this thread much about LDS Terrestrial things, apologetics and the typical topics we see from Scratch.

This thread is a special case - it's intended to be, amongst other things, a dumping ground for comments in other threads that have been deemed to have AI content, and so were not permitted in their original threads.

Bluntly - MG may be using AI, and he may not. Looks like he is. If he is, good for him. He should use it more and not invest much in conversations that are often derailed to be conversations about him, not the OP or thread topic. If AI clogs it up after it got clogged up, so be it.

I've no doubt that MG would agree with you - after all, he seems to be frustrated with restrictions on AI use. As I indicated above, the current rules would not be my choice. OTOH, perhaps my choice would not have been robust enough.

Worth noting, I think, that there have been conversations that were derailed to be about MG, not the OP or thread topic, because MG has made them about him. And many threads in which other posters have tried to steer the conversation back to the OP or thread topic after a derail.

The solution to AI conversations is not more rules, name calling, attacks and moderator intervention. It is more engaging relevant material that makes people want to write. If "FU" is off the table. And reasonable conversation is off the table. And if the actual topic is off the table. Why not just clog it up with AI?

Simply put — want less AI? Write better and engage better.

I agree to an extent, but I'd hate to see the board turn into an AI slugfest. Without some rules, it wouldn't take too long for every thread to become a Gemini vs ChatGPT contest, with no participant ideas ever seeing the light of day. So I'm close to 100% with Shades at this point, and thus willing to accept restrictions on what I can post.

For the record, and nothing to do with this board, I have had several in-depth chats with ChatGPT, and have benefitted from a PoV that doesn't entirely reflect my own. But I've had to reply several times to the AI to point out that either it was factually wrong, or that it was not responding to my prompt, but dragging in irrelevant stuff.

Without AI rules, I have a feeling, partly based on early AI content posted here, that the board would quickly become overwhelmed with a combination of factually wrong and irrelevant stuff.

I know it may be hard to believe ( ) but some of the best writing I've done in a while has been here. I know, it's not anywhere close to the level of certain other posters, but it is what it is. If the solution to too much AI is to write better, then I should consider lurking, because you likely won't get anything substantially better out of me.

[Dr. Shades]

Shades has stated that Mg has not yet had the number of chances Ludwigm had, when asked why he's allowed to continue breaking rules. And since Shades also said Ludwigm had 'infinitely more chances' than mg has had before he was banned, we may never find a resolution.

Wait, WHAT? Ludwigm was banned?? When did that happen?