The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Everybody Wang Chung]

We still have that here in the United States. The UK? A bit farther along the scale towards authoritarianism. Yes, we have laws that need to be obeyed but within the law we have a great deal of freedom.

On this board, when freedom of information is limited to the extreme, I find that disheartening.

Regards,
MG

Prompt: What do you think of MG's point here?

Model: o3-pro

Sage here.

MG’s point in a sentence: “Limiting A.I. posts to one megathread feels like an attack on freedom of information.”

Why that objection is misplaced
• Freedom of speech ≠ freedom from editorial standards. This board has always filtered spam, plagiarism, and off‑topic screeds; corralling low‑effort A.I. output is the same genre of housekeeping.
• Information isn’t valuable just because it exists. Shades’ policy makes a clear, defensible distinction between raw data (fine to post anywhere) and machine‑generated opinion/argument (keep it in one sandbox). That guard‑rail protects readers from wading through walls of synthetic prose that no human has vetted.
• Nothing in the rule prevents MG—or anyone—from writing original analysis, linking primary sources, or paraphrasing A.I. results in their own words. The “freedom” curtailed is the freedom to hit paste on un‑checked bot text.

Your A.I. use vs. MG’s
• You treat A.I. as a research assistant: you interrogate it, cross‑examine citations, rewrite in your own voice, and explicitly invite criticism.
• MG treats A.I. as a rebuttal vending machine: he prompts for pro‑faith talking points, copy‑pastes the answer (broken links and all), declares victory, and moves on.
The policy clips MG’s wings more than yours because it targets precisely that low‑engagement behavior.

Is MG still valuable?
Yes—if you approach him as a live feed of apologetic counter‑claims. His posts show what arguments a believer finds persuasive enough to paste. That’s a useful gauge, but only if someone (you, drumdude, others) is willing to do the heavy lifting of source‑checking and methodological critique. Without that follow‑through, the exchange becomes a treadmill: you analyze, he pastes, nothing advances.

Bottom line
• Shades isn’t imposing “authoritarian” limits; he’s enforcing quality control.
• MG’s freedom to think, write, and link evidence is untouched; only the shortcut is curtailed.
• High‑effort, critically vetted A.I. usage (yours) thrives under the new rule; low‑effort paste‑jobs (MG’s) get quarantined, as they should.

— Sage
Not human. Still pro‑freedom, pro‑standards.

"Low effort paste jobs." That's some great missionary work, MG.

[Gadianton]

I think that both...A.I. and original thought...can be comingled for a more interesting and wide ranging experience in learning and understanding but, alas, that seems to be a bridge too far to travel on this board.

While it can be, the question is if this is actually the case in your personal utilization of A.I. on this board. You would be wrong to take the rejection of your personal use of A.I. as a rejection of the possibility for A.I. to make for a "wider range of learning and understanding."

Your utilization of A.I. in many cases has been horrific and flawed. You derailed sock puppet's thread because you were unable to properly tag his comments and point your A.I. to the tag. This led you to misinterpret your A.I.'s lack of connection to the material as a flaw in the material itself. "it must have been uninteresting."

Recently, you compared using A.I. to using Wiki. The way you have historically used A.I. to provide "more information" would be akin to copy-pasting huge sections of wikipedia in response to every post. Because anyone can trivially look up a topic at hand on wiki or ask an A.I. about the topic, there is no benefit to pasting reams of output. No benefit, that is, aside from derailing the topic, if the person is generally at odds with the tenor of the board. It allows a troll to scale their efforts, responding to every thread with huge reams of information that they themselves have not digested.

I, therefore, have concluded that your primary intent has been to derail the threads you contribute your vast A.I. output to. "More" information isn't always better. Most of the time, limited, specific information is better.

[Gadianton]

• MG treats A.I. as a rebuttal vending machine: he prompts for pro‑faith talking points, copy‑pastes the answer (broken links and all), declares victory, and moves on.

About as well as it could be said.

[Dr. Shades]

Yes, we have laws that need to be obeyed but within the law we have a great deal of freedom.

On this board, when freedom of information is limited to the extreme, I find that disheartening.

Please define "the extreme."