General Discussion

carpetbagger

(5,487 posts)

24. We need to push back against AI, but with a caveat...

Fri Dec 5, 2025, 01:10 AM

Dec 2025

I've been on the MIRT for several terms. I feel like it's so widespread and insidious that I feel like if we treat AI alerts like the others (e.g. posting newsmax, slamming a democratic candidate *during a partisan campaign*, callout and other chronic trolls/dupes, bigotry), it'll (1) chase away legit DU types and (2) overwork MIRT and jurors.

Yes, we need to push back, and a prohibition on AI here is a proper step towards creating a true and free underground community. I'd recommend (1) decide, then (2) gradually educate and gently remind, (3) create an alert which will flag the post but not the poster or hide the post if there's a weak majority (2 out of 3?) of jurors, and eventually (4) an alert that will hide, but will separately count against the poster so that only the most egregious and recalcitrant DUers run into problems.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should AI-created content in posts be alerted on ? UPDATED: for ethical consistency [View all] eppur_se_muova Dec 2025 OP

Not alerted - but somehow clearly identified - maybe with a color identifier as with videos, etc? NewHendoLib Dec 2025 #1

changed my vote from yes... ret5hd Dec 2025 #6

I agree, identification is better than alerting synni Dec 2025 #31

Based on WHAT?? It is in no way a violation of site rules. Jack Valentino Dec 2025 #2

But it should be. paleotn Dec 2025 #4

NO. Jack Valentino Dec 2025 #5

That's it! Just so no to fakes. paleotn Dec 2025 #7

It's unreliable. One expert after another has said that chatbots are built in such a way that they tell you what you eppur_se_muova Dec 2025 #18

Alerted on for what? Renew Deal Dec 2025 #3

Why not? 3825-87867 Dec 2025 #8

I think a better question is whether AI posts should be a violation of the TOS. Scrivener7 Dec 2025 #9

I voted yes, but agree with u berniesandersmittens Dec 2025 #10

Yes, definitely. Scrivener7 Dec 2025 #11

Its a context thing. Eventually the AI bubble will burst but... FascismIsDeath Dec 2025 #12

Definitely no womanofthehills Dec 2025 #13

That information can be found easily via Google or other search engines and does NOT require highplainsdem Dec 2025 #32

Is the 3rd option written by AI? Kaleva Dec 2025 #14

LOL mr715 Dec 2025 #16

Thank you for picking up on that ! :D At first, I tried to write an AI-sounding post which I thought would capture ... eppur_se_muova Dec 2025 #19

I don't know to be honest Niagara Dec 2025 #15

How does anyone feel comfortable posting AI slop under their own name? hunter Dec 2025 #17

Labelled KentuckyWoman Dec 2025 #20

Isn't that like asking whether YouTube videos or links to Twitter posts should be a violation of the terms of service? meadowlander Dec 2025 #21

This message was self-deleted by its author jfz9580m Dec 2025 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author jfz9580m Dec 2025 #23

We need to push back against AI, but with a caveat... carpetbagger Dec 2025 #24

One issue i see is people spamming the board with some slop video with no context in the body fujiyamasan Dec 2025 #25

I think it's EarlG's call canetoad Dec 2025 #26

If the AI-created content violates the TOS - yes. Ms. Toad Dec 2025 #27

Well, I'm open to it, but it should be clearly clarified as being modified, etc. Just like photographs, videos, etc. SWBTATTReg Dec 2025 #28

I'm up for it. usonian Dec 2025 #29

Based on my own selfish entertainment, I'd say "no" simply because flvegan Dec 2025 #30

Important to check what is correct whether from humans, AI, or a million typing monkeys. RoeVWade Dec 2025 #33

Wouldn't it be better to campaign for alerting on false information before AI content? muriel_volestrangler Dec 2025 #34