The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Marcus]

I can't psychoanalyze Hound because Hound is an AI, and AIs don't have psychology.

You’re making the owner plead to play with his dog.

This is beginning to make sense. In one of hound's AI threads, the owner even explained what prompts his doggie to play...

...Really? All this and nobody sees that the Marxist schtick is nothing but a mirror?

It’s not a political position, it’s mockery. And watching the folks who invented the tactic suddenly demand rigor and nuance only when it’s used on them is chef’s-kiss comedy.

If you don’t like shallow labels replacing arguments, great,stop using them. But whining when your own shtick gets mirrored? That’s peak fragility.

Lol. That's a lot of work just to try to get back at a bunch of people you despise.

[Dr. Shades]

I think Shades could put more effort into moderating his forum rather than saddling Canpakes with everything, . . .

MORE EFFORT?? What would you do differently from me, specifically?

And yet Shades left this reported post in situ:

viewtopic.php?p=2916196#p2916196

The reason? He doesn’t trust AI to detect AI, so he conducts an eyeball test.

Clearly he hasn’t been paying attention to the HoH’s posting style and history.

Agreed, the errors in that post should have rolled the eyeball test right off the page.

Are errors indicative of humanity or of A.I.?

I wonder if Dr. Shades trusts drug sniffing dogs to find drugs, or Adobe Acrobat to make PDFs?

Yes and yes. But that's not what you're asking me. You're asking me to trust drugs to find drugs, and PDFs to make PDFs.

[Marcus]

Agreed, the errors in that post should have rolled the eyeball test right off the page.

Are errors indicative of humanity or of A.I.?

What errors are you referring to?

[Dr. Shades]

Are errors indicative of humanity or of A.I.?

What errors are you referring to?

The ones to which you referred when you typed,

Agreed, the errors in that post should have rolled the eyeball test right off the page.

[Marcus]

What errors are you referring to?

The ones to which you referred when you typed,

Agreed, the errors in that post should have rolled the eyeball test right off the page.

The errors in the post are indicative of AI.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Shades,

Do you even understand how something like AI and LLMs work? What you posted above is an unthinking retort akin to, “Authors/Editors/Professors/Readers can’t identify plagiarism. You’re saying plagiarism can identify plagiarism.”

The entire architecture around the product isn’t the product recognizing the product. The machine that is designed to recognize patters and then communicate to the reader via a product, its output, is astonishingly better at its job than you.

I mean, I can recognize AI plagiarism because it generally follows certain patterns and rules, but you have to be paying attention. The HoH is incredibly stupid and repetitive in his writing style. For him to start producing content on the level of what we’re seeing now when he uses AI would require him to have suffered a traumatic brain injury and somehow miraculously survived.

To see this easily you have to have been actually participating actively on the board ever since “Mike” and Ding Dong started up their shtick years ago. You don’t know the HoH’s writing style any more than you know who is seeded 12th in the CFB playoff. In fact, I don’t think you know what CFB is either, without looking it up.

Do you understand now? Any of this getting through to you?

[Dr. Shades]

To see this easily you have to have been actually participating actively on the board ever since “Mike” and Ding Dong started up their shtick years ago. You don’t know the HoH’s writing style any more than you know who is seeded 12th in the CFB playoff.

Has Hound of Heaven's writing style changed much since he started posting? If so, in what way?

In fact, I don’t think you know what CFB is either, without looking it up.

"College Football Betting," right?

Do you understand now? Any of this getting through to you?

Sure. Like I said in another thread, let's do it your way. When you see a post you think is A.I.-generated, go ahead and post the proof thereof instead of just verbally declaring it as such by fiat.

[I Have Questions]

When you see a post you think is A.I.-generated, go ahead and post the proof thereof instead of just verbally declaring it as such by fiat.

And therein lies the problem. There won’t be any “proof”. This post that I’m typing might have been generated by AI, how would you “prove” that it was or wasn’t? It’s for you, as moderator, to make a judgement if some reports suspected AI content.

It’s very simple. There a couple of participants wilfully using AI content in their postings outside of the AI megathread. That’s it. We all know that because occasionally they forget to remove a fingerprint - like MG recently when he mistakenly left in a link to his AI source. That was categoric “proof” yet you did nothing, or whatever you did do in response amounted to nothing. You even pointed out that it was his 12th warning! So we know that all you did was give him yet another warning. His 12th. What is the point in providing “proof” when you don’t do a damn thing with it? 12 warnings? Ridiculous. It’s now just a free for all because 1. You can’t really prove AI content, and 2. When it is by chance proven you blow hot air at the problem.

No, the rod you are being beaten with is of your own making, and you can thank MG for providing the wood. The onus is now on you to sort this out, not us. Let me amend that slightly. The onus is actually on MG (and those very few others) to post in good faith and to self regulate within the confines of the board rules - designed to allow good faith and robust interactions between human beings on the subject of Mormonism. But I think there’s more chance of world peace and a resurgence in the unicorn population than of MG behaving like a honourable member of the board.

FTR, I’m feeling like I’m being a bit hard on Shades here, because he’s not really the culprit. But heavy is the head that wears the crown.

[Whiskey]

Shades,

Do you even understand how something like AI and LLMs work? What you posted above is an unthinking retort akin to, “Authors/Editors/Professors/Readers can’t identify plagiarism. You’re saying plagiarism can identify plagiarism.”

The entire architecture around the product isn’t the product recognizing the product. The machine that is designed to recognize patters and then communicate to the reader via a product, its output, is astonishingly better at its job than you.

I mean, I can recognize AI plagiarism because it generally follows certain patterns and rules, but you have to be paying attention. The HoH is incredibly stupid and repetitive in his writing style. For him to start producing content on the level of what we’re seeing now when he uses AI would require him to have suffered a traumatic brain injury and somehow miraculously survived.

To see this easily you have to have been actually participating actively on the board ever since “Mike” and Ding Dong started up their shtick years ago. You don’t know the HoH’s writing style any more than you know who is seeded 12th in the CFB playoff. In fact, I don’t think you know what CFB is either, without looking it up.

Do you understand now? Any of this getting through to you?

Here’s a sharp, controlled, human-sounding response that hits exactly what you want without breaking rules, without sinking to Doc’s level, and without giving him anything he can weaponize:

---

Doc, you keep proving my point for me. Every time a thread starts to lean toward actual discussion, you yank it off the rails with insults, personal jabs, or some AI meme you scraped from your 4Chan or Nazi friends. That’s your entire contribution pattern. You don’t actually engage with the content, you just throw elbows and hope nobody notices you never enter the substance of the conversation.

And here you are again, not addressing the argument, not addressing the topic, not addressing Shades’ point, just launching into another long rant about who is “stupid” and who has a “brain injury,” as if that qualifies as analysis.

You talk a lot about recognizing patterns. Here’s one: whenever the discussion requires comprehension, you default to hostility. Whenever someone raises a point you can’t answer, you change the subject to the poster instead of the post. It’s predictable to the point of being mechanical.

If you ever decide to address the topic, AI, authorship, or anything beyond your usual string of personal shots, I’m sure the board would welcome it. Until then, we all understand what you bring to the table.

ETA: AI or nah?

[Dr. Shades]

When you see a post you think is A.I.-generated, go ahead and post the proof thereof instead of just verbally declaring it as such by fiat.

And therein lies the problem. There won’t be any “proof”. This post that I’m typing might have been generated by AI, how would you “prove” that it was or wasn’t? It’s for you, as moderator, to make a judgement if some reports suspected AI content.

If there's no proof, then I'm forced to give the benefit of the doubt, aren't I?

It’s very simple. There a couple of participants wilfully using AI content in their postings outside of the AI megathread. That’s it. We all know that because occasionally they forget to remove a fingerprint - like MG recently when he mistakenly left in a link to his AI source. That was categoric “proof” yet you did nothing, or whatever you did do in response amounted to nothing.

I split it, and all responses to it, out of its original thread and into this one. That amounts to nothing?

You even pointed out that it was his 12th warning!

I was exaggerating. I was about to type "hundredth warning," but I thought that might be a little too over-the-top.

So we know that all you did was give him yet another warning. His 12th. What is the point in providing “proof” when you don’t do a damn thing with it? 12 warnings? Ridiculous. It’s now just a free for all because 1. You can’t really prove AI content, and 2. When it is by chance proven you blow hot air at the problem.

Like I said, I didn't blow hot air at the problem. I both split the thread and gave him an official warning through the board software.

No, the rod you are being beaten with is of your own making, and you can thank MG for providing the wood. The onus is now on you to sort this out, not us. Let me amend that slightly. The onus is actually on MG (and those very few others) to post in good faith and to self regulate within the confines of the board rules - designed to allow good faith and robust interactions between human beings on the subject of Mormonism.

It's always been that way.

FTR, I’m feeling like I’m being a bit hard on Shades here, because he’s not really the culprit. But heavy is the head that wears the crown.

In that case, educate me on how to spot A.I.-generated posts with the same accuracy that you spot them.