Should ChatGPT bots be banned from the EEVblog Forum?

[Neutrion]

For now, there might still be ways to identify chat bots, for example by testing them for glitch tokens:



Identifiable or not, a big no from my side for any bots on EEVblog.  Bots must be banned from human networks.  GPT is no better than any email spam bot, not to mention the destructive potential if ChatGPT is weaponized as a propaganda bot.  Propaganda is no joke, can inflict more damage than a nuke.

Because of this danger (propaganda bots), I bet it won't be long until we will see laws regarding total ban of chat bots from social networks, or at least some sort of human-user proof/signature/certificate.

I agree with you from the other side of the border (Maybe this is the sign that the END is near   )
Unfortunately the human-user proof will be wery difficuly if not impossible to do in an anonimized way, so it will make it really difficult to preserve the possible anonimity of the internet to avoid a Big Brother society like in China.

[PlainName]

Let's reframe it a little: would it be OK to have google search as an answer, providing the user posting identifies it as such. How about stackoverflow? Doesn't quite sound the same, but consider them as we see ChatGPT now: not just the rare instance now and then but multiple times in a thread and it many topics. So we are really asking: a stackoverflow answer unedited and posted, because.

I think that would be banned pretty soon if someone took to doing that. But ChatGPT isn't already despite it doing a good impression of a virus infecting nearly every online interaction. Hell, even the newspapers are getting into the game now and using it as filler instead of twitter quotes.

So I would vote to ban bots posting. I haven't actually voted because it wasn't clear if the vote also include bots scraping. I think scraping would be OK (Googles does it, so why not anyone else).

[james_s]

But do not ban responses generated by ChatGPT provided the member attributes them to ChatGPT.

Yes, that could become troublesome really quickly. If there was a rule that said no use of ChatGPT unless attributued then it's likely people will start reporting responses they think are ChatGPT.

Seems like that could happen regardless of whether they're allowed if attributed.

[pcprogrammer]

Let's reframe it a little: would it be OK to have google search as an answer, providing the user posting identifies it as such. How about stackoverflow? Doesn't quite sound the same, but consider them as we see ChatGPT now: not just the rare instance now and then but multiple times in a thread and it many topics. So we are really asking: a stackoverflow answer unedited and posted, because.

I think that would be banned pretty soon if someone took to doing that. But ChatGPT isn't already despite it doing a good impression of a virus infecting nearly every online interaction. Hell, even the newspapers are getting into the game now and using it as filler instead of twitter quotes.

That is an interesting view on it. It would indeed be somewhat similar if a member joins here to just use stackoverflow answers as replies to questions asked here. What we need here is people who can answer the questions themselves, not copycats.

So if a member does this constantly a ban might also be needed.

So I would vote to ban bots posting. I haven't actually voted because it wasn't clear if the vote also include bots scraping. I think scraping would be OK (Googles does it, so why not anyone else).

This one is just for banning the bots. Scraping is in this other thread

[mfro]

I'm waiting for the day we'll find two ChatGPT instances arguing about a controversy topic over hundreds and hundreds of posts... 

[exe]

I just a came across a youtube video with shitload of bots making comments. It felt very unpleasant. Like, it's a place for bots, not for humans.

I don't see a point of reposting chatgpt answers. I have a chatgpt account and I talk to bot when I need to. Here I'd like to get access to expertise of experienced engineers (or just hangout). I still prefer talking with real people).

[SiliconWizard]

As I said in your other thread, yes to this one.
It's the only way of dealing with it for now.

And your forum is your place. You don't have to tolerate any of this if you don't want to.

[magic]

I'm waiting for the day we'll find two ChatGPT instances arguing about a controversy topic over hundreds and hundreds of posts... 

This thing is so retarded it would probably agree with itself over hundreds of posts.


Repeating what was already speculated in supporters lounge:
Those users posting ChatGPT responses must be doing it for some reason, and there is no way in hell it's anything good.

It's gonna be post farming before posting spam, or using the forum as guinea pig for some AI experiments for free, or exercising their whacky mental disorder, or whatever.

[thm_w]

That is an interesting view on it. It would indeed be somewhat similar if a member joins here to just use stackoverflow answers as replies to questions asked here. What we need here is people who can answer the questions themselves, not copycats.

So if a member does this constantly a ban might also be needed.

If the question has already been answered clearly and correctly on stackoverflow, I'll just link there and say read this link/quote. I'll link to eevblog elsewhere if needed as well.
People wasting time typing out the same information with slightly different wording is pointless.

But yeah, I'm not going to copy paste an answer from somewhere else without attribution, that is not fair.

[coppercone2]

I'm waiting for the day we'll find two ChatGPT instances arguing about a controversy topic over hundreds and hundreds of posts... 

This thing is so retarded it would probably agree with itself over hundreds of posts.


Repeating what was already speculated in supporters lounge:
Those users posting ChatGPT responses must be doing it for some reason, and there is no way in hell it's anything good.

It's gonna be post farming before posting spam, or using the forum as guinea pig for some AI experiments for free, or exercising their whacky mental disorder, or whatever.

IDK its like agricultural vandalism, ecological warfare or something.. releasing pests or planting weeds on purpose, or just 'fronting'

[coppercone2]

if you consider the forum a town


A reasonable experiment would be the amaizng chat gpt thread, step right up and have the machine answer your questions, the shady wagon parked near the pub as a challenge game, that maybe turns into a service beuro of some kind.

but what is happening is like some 1970's alien subversion plot. paranoid ass shit with implanted robot infiltrators, possibly by commercial or even cult like groups

Like its clear that its some malignant shit going on. courage the cowardly dog episode


Startrek TNG covered this, it was clear that data is a AI and that he is basically annoying as fuck. He got assigned to things for short periods of time, and learned manners, and was generally moderated by picard. Eventually he got some trust but it was clear people were needed. And that was a GOOD and SMART ai, not this primordial ooze.

[MT]

I'm waiting for the day we'll find two ChatGPT instances arguing about a controversy topic over hundreds and hundreds of posts... 

Already happend 9 years ago! 

[John B]

I for one welcome the new chaos hellscape of questioning whether I'm living in a solipsistic simulation:

Bot 1: This member needs to be banned for being an AI bot.
Bot 2: I'm not an AI bot, you're an AI bot!
Bot 1: That's exactly what an AI bot would say.

[MK14]

I for one welcome the new chaos hellscape of questioning whether I'm living in a solipsistic simulation:

Bot 1: This member needs to be banned for being an AI bot.
Bot 2: I'm not an AI bot, you're an AI bot!
Bot 1: That's exactly what an AI bot would say.

You're reminding me of this:

[eti]

Me: "why is eevblog voice so high"

ChatGBP: "Dave Jones, the host of EEVblog, has a naturally high-pitched voice. This is simply a physical characteristic and not related to any intentional change or manipulation of his voice. However, it's worth noting that Dave has a background in radio broadcasting and has likely developed some techniques for projecting his voice clearly and effectively, which may make his voice sound even higher-pitched than it would otherwise."

LolBotz

[SiliconWizard]

Not that this is my concern, but I think you may be spending a little too much time with this thing.

[vk6zgo]

How about dogs?
"On the internet nobody knows you're a dog!"

Did you hear about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac ?

He would lay awake at night wondering "Is there a dog?"

Edit: perhaps it's time he asked chatPTG

How about the dyslexic Devil worshipper?
He sold his soul to Santa.

[Halcyon]

I think the general rule has been: enforce the rules strictly for new users but be a little more lenient for users who have a clear track record of contributing positively to the forum (which is 99% of accounts).

If a reputable user wants to include the occasional ChatGPT response, I see no issue with that. Same goes with promoting their side-business or selling items etc...

But if it's a new user and that's their only purpose, then I tend to just ban them. Anyone can use Google or AI to seek answers themselves. Usually if a user doesn't seem quite right, they usually aren't. I can probably count one or two occasions where I've had a legitimate person banned, contacting us asking "what happened?". Bots/spammers/AI don't do that.

[Tomorokoshi]

I voted "Yes, but allow one official bot that seeds replies in a special section" because complete banning might be difficult. This is probably inescapable now, so a limited sandbox area may allow us to understand how to deal with them better.

Consider these situations:

1. An unscrupulous person posts a question. On the surface it could be either seemingly legitimate or obviously trolling. The conversation proceeds until the reaction they were looking for is achieved, which wastes time for others.

2. An inexperienced person posts an answer to a question that required looking up something for which they had no knowledge. Perhaps information from another web site is copied over as the answer. A few cycles go by and they become unable to proceed, wasting time and making the situation confused. Would this be considered a case of something similar to plagiarism? Trolling?

One of the problems with AI is that it could take on either of those roles, likely for malignant purposes because they aren't self-driven yet: they require someone to direct the original question to it. Imagine a situation where someone makes a program to a forum for questions, submit them to an AI, and then post the response to the forum using automated means. Would 3 per day be a problem? 10? 30? 100? How much would it take to submit the question to an AI with a modifier such that the answer is slightly wrong? How much of the trust and legitimacy of the forum relies on reasonably correct answers? A malignant AI could, over time, contaminate the system enough so that everyone else loses trust in it.

[SiliconWizard]

If a reputable user wants to include the occasional ChatGPT response, I see no issue with that.

I do. If you have nothing to say, why post? If people are asking in a forum, it's not to find answers they would have found using a search engine or chat bot available to anyone.
Why would you do that? That's absolutely beyond me. That's the very opposite of what a forum is for.

Not only that, but if a "reputable user" does that, it just conveys the idea that the user they are replying to is too stupid to do that themselves. It's wrong on all levels.

And finally again, every time you are using or mentioning those AI companies, that's free advertisement for them.
Imagine some users that would spend half their posts talking about Agilent.
But somehow people are starting to obsess over ChatGPT, mentioning it every other post and that's fine with everyone. Cool.

[coppercone2]

thats like a jehovas witness

[ejeffrey]

I voted for a total ban. There are enough websites with answers that are clearly AI generated and useless.

Agreed.  Even when/if it is not useless, I know where to find ChatGPT if I want to get it's response. 

If a reputable user wants to include the occasional ChatGPT response, I see no issue with that. Same goes with promoting their side-business or selling items etc...

I just don't see what it adds.  If a reputable user is going to take the time to go generate the chatgpt response, verify that it is correct using their personal knowledge, and then post it properly identified, what is the actual point?  Do any reputable users *want* to do this?  So far I mostly see what appears to be spammer account farming.

I don't have a problem in General Chat if someone posts "look at this dumb answer chatgpt gave me" (although it's getting pretty old), but actually using chatgpt to generate a reply for someone who posted a question seems like something that should just be banned.  You can always revisit the decision later if some real use cases come up.

[Siwastaja]

We have already enough human bullshitters. Can't ban them because it would hurt their feelings, so we live with them.

ChatGPT produces worst-level bullshit, in par with lowest 0.1% of the forum human members. The surficially convincing writing style makes it especially cringeworth. ChatGPT does not have feelings (or if it does, I don't care hurting them), which is why such bullshit should be banned.

This cancer is now apparently being pushed from many new accounts that show the Chinese flag. Let's just report those when it becomes obvious they are ChatGPT frontends.

[Lowkus]

We can go to an AI site if we want to ask it questions.  When I come to this site I want to interact with real people who have real experiences and real opinions.  But I don't see any problem if people come here on occasion to discuss an AI answer they were given on some topic, like if someone wants to discuss what the AI told them.  I've gotten very incorrect advice from AI when I sought information about a file format, and it would change its answer each time I asked it the same question.  I've even gotten incorrect answers from AI on extremely simple questions, like a few days ago I was working on a novel and asked ChatGPT for a list of girl's names with exactly one "i" in the name, and in the resulting list I found the names "Caitlin" and "Victoria".

[vk6zgo]

We can go to an AI site if we want to ask it questions.  When I come to this site I want to interact with real people who have real experiences and real opinions.  But I don't see any problem if people come here on occasion to discuss an AI answer they were given on some topic, like if someone wants to discuss what the AI told them.  I've gotten very incorrect advice from AI when I sought information about a file format, and it would change its answer each time I asked it the same question.  I've even gotten incorrect answers from AI on extremely simple questions, like a few days ago I was working on a novel and asked ChatGPT for a list of girl's names with exactly one "i" in the name, and in the resulting list I found the names "Caitlin" and "Victoria".

This is very similar to my experience with it.