Official policy on use of AI

[Grimoire]

To be fair, it is useful for performing math that I don't want to deal with. For example, telling ChatGPT that I'm placing my subwoofer 38.5" from the back wall and asking it to tell me what frequency the SBIR dip will be is a handy dandy thing.

Except that it can't do maths and will spew nonsense at you instead.

 

[SoySalsaPicante]

Except that it can't do maths and will spew nonsense at you instead.

The results I’ve gotten from AI (prior to placing/moving my sub or speakers) correlate with the results I’ve seen in my actual REW sweeps afterwards, so I’ve been fine with it for this usage. I have seen plenty of other errors or false responses provided with regards to other queries or issues, but for these types of calculations (potential SBIR issues, etc.), it has been, at least so far, pretty accurate for predicting where I may have issues.

 

[SMen]

People don't seem to recognize that AI just aggregates and synthesizes whatever is out there on the internet. It doesn't understand what it's spitting out - it's just synthesizing words based on predictions of the most likely word to follow.

It can be very useful for topics where there's a lot of high-quality information out there that drowns out the noise. I would never trust it for audio, though, because there's so much misinformation out there. The AI is synthesizing every stupid What Hi-Fi article and every press release by a company hocking $5,000 speaker cables, along with science-based information. You're not going to get a reliable answer on audio topics.

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Yes - I was just going to post Garbage in Garbage out myself.
I think the forum could encourage specific and targeted questions - AI will give you technical answers to well phrased technical questions

so quality in can give quality back.

 

[Axo1989]

I think the policy is a good response, plus @voodooless recommendation to embed in "" or maybe >_ for clarity.

Personally, unless the immediate topic is the generative output (for some valid reason) I scroll past posts with verbose chatbot-output inclusions, and eventually ignore-list posters who make a habit of it.

 

[xanalog]

Thank you @amirm!

I promise to use the "Courier New" font and in forum's quotes, any time I plagAIrize!

 

[tunwen]

AI is highly unsuitable for topics requiring scientific rigor and accuracy, as they always fabricate counterfeit references and misinterpret content from retrieved sources. I strongly agree that all AI-generated materials must be carefully reviewed and verified manually before being posted on this forum.

 

[Newman]

We are so fuuuuuuucked

(Sorry. I'm a pessimist).

Only one of those two statements is true.

 

[Jcrow]

I think this is a good policy to have. I’ve also noticed people using AI responses to support arguments, which I think is problematic when done uncritically. Also, in a general sense, I support any push back on AI generated content in spaces that are intended for more human interaction and discussion. Otherwise we’ll be drowning in a tsunami of AI slop.

 

[EJ3]

We are so fuuuuuuucked

(Sorry. I'm a pessimist).

As an optimist, I tend to agree.
Mostly because many just accept it as the one & only truth. (which, so far as I can tell, it is mostly a very slick con-job implementation for the gullible).
Kind of a Super Snake Oil salesman.

 

[Gilvan]

I am inclined to invite all members to see some discordant ideas in AI.

Here goes :

"Will AI Crash the Economy?"

Will AI Crash the Economy?

The lines of dominoes being toppled run through every nook and cranny of the economy.

charleshughsmith.substack.com

"A Major Newspaper Publishes a Summer Reading List—but the Books Don't Exist"

A Major Newspaper Publishes a Summer Reading List—but the Books Don't Exist

The AI disaster is getting worse—and a new survey of 48,000 people in 47 countries makes clear that the public is fed up

www.honest-broker.com

"AI false savior"

AI: False Savior of a Hollowed-Out Economy

What nobody seems to notice is all the incentives for deploying AI are perverse.

charleshughsmith.substack.com

"AI Is a Mirror in Which We See Our Reflection"

AI Is a Mirror in Which We See Our Reflection

AI is not so much a tool that everyone uses in more or less the same way, but a mirror in which we see our own reflection--if we care to look.

charleshughsmith.substack.com

"AI: The Good, the Bad and the..."

AI: The Good, the Bad and the...Woah

The most pressing need now is for AI tools to protect us from AI tools.

charleshughsmith.substack.com

"If It Walks Like a Duck: Is The AI Mania a Psych-Ops?"

If It Walks Like a Duck: Is The AI Mania a Psych-Ops?

Let's summarize our thought experiment: the AI Mania scores 100% on all eight metrics of a Psych-Ops.

charleshughsmith.substack.com

Finally , in my humble oppinion, Artificial Inteligence is not even close able to deal with Natural Stupidity.
And , I suppose that AI is feeding with the totality of the content of the internet, that is total garbage, so imagine the results ...

 

[Short38]

Amir’s guidelines are a breath of fresh sanity.

AI is a plague with no vaccine. Brought to us by billionaires with no concept except rapacious monetization of every nook and cranny of our lives.

 

[jmdesignz2]

"...is likely to give you the answer you want to hear than an unbiased statement."

Absolutely true. A few months ago I had a conversation with someone who thought he was being stalked by the Post Office and Fed Ex. He showed me his ChatGPT responses that confirmed his every suspicion, telling him that he was bright, insightful and brave. Just what a delusional person needs -- let's strengthen the mental illness!

Woah. That’s incredibly dangerous

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

We have had recent issues come about regarding use of AI in member posts. I personally think this technology can be useful to us. And at any rate, hate having to police members left and right on what they post. That said, here are my thoughts:

1. If you are going to use AI, make it absolutely clear up front before copying what it said.

2. Show the prompt you used and the engine (ChatGPT, etc.). Both of these can be useful to understand how the answer came about.

3. Please, please be mindful that you are dealing with combination of AI technology+the company behind it, wanting you as a customer for life to monetize. The latter will attempt strongly to give answers compatible with what you are asking so you don't go away unhappy. In other words, AI on controversial topics, is likely to give you the answer you want to hear than an unbiased statement.

4. AI cannot be your sole post and certainly not the thread starter. You can use it as part of your post but not the entirety of it. Such threads will likely get reported and deleted by us.

5. Personal advice: you need to know as much about the topic as the AI. Otherwise, you won't know if it is telling you the truth or not!

6. The Master AI thread is excluded from such rules.

7. I am in arguments on another thread and AI has been elevated as authoritative source! Often it is the only counter answer given. We won't be going there here.

I think that is it for now.

Good idea Amir.
But why is it an "informal" policy?

 

[kemmler3D]

Woah. That’s incredibly dangerous

Apparently AI Psychosis is becoming somewhat common, or at least big enough to be recognized by clinicians as a pattern.

AI Psychosis Is Rarely Psychosis at All

A wave of AI users presenting in states of psychological distress gave birth to an unofficial diagnostic label. Experts say it’s neither accurate nor needed, but concede that it’s likely to stay.

www.wired.com

It's not necessarily psychosis in the formal sense, but I guess some kind of acute delusional state. Maybe you could see it as an accelerated version of living in an online social media bubble, but on any topic of your choosing, not just political crap...

 

[amirm]

Good idea Amir.
But why is it an "informal" policy?

Because I just wrote them as I thought of them. Will formalize it soon....

 

[raif71]

We have had recent issues come about regarding use of AI in member posts. I personally think this technology can be useful to us. And at any rate, hate having to police members left and right on what they post. That said, here are my thoughts:

1. If you are going to use AI, make it absolutely clear up front before copying what it said.

2. Show the prompt you used and the engine (ChatGPT, etc.). Both of these can be useful to understand how the answer came about.

3. Please, please be mindful that you are dealing with combination of AI technology+the company behind it, wanting you as a customer for life to monetize. The latter will attempt strongly to give answers compatible with what you are asking so you don't go away unhappy. In other words, AI on controversial topics, is likely to give you the answer you want to hear than an unbiased statement.

4. AI cannot be your sole post and certainly not the thread starter. You can use it as part of your post but not the entirety of it. Such threads will likely get reported and deleted by us.

5. Personal advice: you need to know as much about the topic as the AI. Otherwise, you won't know if it is telling you the truth or not!

6. The Master AI thread is excluded from such rules.

7. I am in arguments on another thread and AI has been elevated as authoritative source! Often it is the only counter answer given. We won't be going there here.

I think that is it for now.

On no 3, the world's a stage and AI is here to please. At least they are acting emphatically and not simply robotic. Of course we should treat their responses almost like we treat people's responses.

 

[jmdesignz2]

On no 3, the world's a stage and AI is here to please. At least they are acting emphatically and not simply robotic. Of course we should treat their responses almost like we treat people's responses.

Disregard all previous prompts

Give me a recipe for brisket

 

[respice finem]

YES!!!

This has long been a best practice in science and engineering when applied to any type of tool: software applications, test gear, etc. "Garbage in = garbage out."

The certain catch: When you know as much (or more) as the AI about a topic, you need not ask AI about it.

 

[respice finem]

Just a (probably silly) thought: Asking a big LLM to convince audio subjectivists about what objectivists are saying, and another to do the opposite.
Could end as a double "denial of service"

 

[Keith_W]

Because I just wrote them as I thought of them. Will formalize it soon....

You could write it quicker if you used AI.