• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Official policy on use of AI

Status
Not open for further replies.
And as half the population are of below average intelligence that sets a pretty low bar for what might be considered intelligent. ;)
I was going to make a comment but just realized I would get in trouble for political material so I will leave it at this.
 
And as half the population are of below average intelligence that sets a pretty low bar for what might be considered intelligent. ;)

But, If the population was 1000% more intelligent, it would still be this way (statistically) :)
 
accept that once LLMs get really good that they will be indistinguishable from AI to pleb humans. BUT they will Never be AI...
Instead of just repeatedly writing that an LLM will never be an AI, you should first define the parameters that make up artificial intelligence.
 
Instead of just repeatedly writing that an LLM will never be an AI, you should first define the parameters that make up artificial intelligence.
Or perhaps you would care to do that. Or does it all hang easy with you?
 
@amirm,
Would it be possible to JUST add a AI BB code [ai]...[/ai] to the board and request users to employ?

I know, I know!
My request sounds simpleton but consider the source!:rolleyes:!
 
Smart people figure out the strengths and weaknesses of LLMs and put them to work.

I am genuinely shocked how wrong ai can often be. But NEVER giving the impression it may be mistaken. Declaring rubbish as fact....basically it's the new fallible god to the gullible!

I'm actually impressed by how often they're right, and at times even insightful... but anybody unquestioningly trusting an LLM is either experiencing some kind of mental health issue or is just an idiot in general.

Still, who is even advocating for that!? What a useless strawman argument.

Yeah, some people have gotten themselves into bad situations because of LLMs. And it's pretty easy to trick LLMs. But again, you can make anything flake out if you use it wrong.

It's pretty easy to wreck a brand-new luxury car, too. Aim it at a telephone pole and floor the gas pedal. Or just pour sugar in the gas tank. Let me know how it goes. In other news... did you know knives can hurt you? Especially if you hold the pointy part instead of the handle? And that you can break your thumb with a hammer if you're not careful? Yeah, that's just kind of how tools are. (Unlike LLMs, knives and hammers don't even have warning messages...)

Last thing I'll say is that not all LLMs are equal. I'm not sure if this applies to you but it's abundantly clear that there's a real Dunning-Kruger thing going on with a lot of people, who play around with free LLM crap, get crappy results, and decide that all LLMs are crap. Sort of like a person who drives a 1987 Yugo and decides that all cars must be crap.

I have a $20/mo ChatGPT subscription. While not perfect (what is?) it's noticeably better than the free "AI" thing baked into Google's search results. The state of the art LLMs need somewhere in the neighborhood of seconds to minutes of computation time on nVidia's massive datacenter GPUs to answer complex questions. Whatever the heck Google's doing there, there's zero chance they're throwing a lot of GPU time at it considering their search results still come back in like 100ms.
 
....
So far I use AI as an "assistant" to improve the linguistic qualities of my post as a non native speaker. Not by posting translations but by using them as propositions for amendments.
The same here!

I usually write my draft post directly in English first and after careful spell check on-the-fly in the posting box and "visual tyle" confirmation by the "Preview", I just push "Post reply" to upload my post.

I sometimes use "AI translation into Japanese", not so often, to check the contents would be properly reflecting/expressing my thoughts and intentions, since Japanese is my mother language.

In rare case of some complicated and/or intensive discussions/posts, again not so often, I use out-of-ASR web "AI Google translation" to go back-and-forth between English and Japanese for brushing-up my English wordings. I, at least myself, prefer "AI Google translation" than "AI Microsoft Bing translation".

So far, I have never used any of the available AIs to directly "create" or "write" my wordings in English to be posted in ASR forum.

Consequently, all of you would please kindly forgive me when I would have strange and/or improper English wordings in my posts; in such case, your kind suggestion, without hesitation, for correction/revision/edition will be highly appreciated. :)
 
Last edited:
@amirm,
Would it be possible to JUST add a AI BB code [ai]...[/ai] to the board and request users to employ?

I know, I know!
My request sounds simpleton but consider the source!:rolleyes:!
A good idea IMHO. But, this will work for a case of knowingly linking or pasting AI (or LLM...) content.
Soon, it will be impossible to reliably tell it from "natural intelligence" content, or it will be unavoidably mixed.
No I have no better idea...
 
Last edited:
...Yeah, some people have gotten themselves into bad situations because of LLMs. And it's pretty easy to trick LLMs. But again, you can make anything flake out if you use it wrong.
Absolutely. But, many people will do just that (use it wrong), and sometimes not the expected "idiots". With consequences for them and others. Maybe LLMs should be "curated" in some way, but IDK how. In any case, sufficiently competent humans will soon be too few to master it.
 
I just can’t see any serious problem with this. As ever before, we should care about what is written in any new posting and not so much about assumptions how it was created.
 
And what about (hypothetically) a scientific paper, peer reviewed, with citations and such, but we can't know if 0%, 10% or 100% of it is "artificial"?
Including references to non-existent other papers and scientists. It already happened, at least in some medical publications, and eradicating it is getting harder each day...
 
And what about (hypothetically) a scientific paper, peer reviewed, with citations and such, but we can't know if 0%, 10% or 100% of it is "artificial"?
Including references to non-existent other papers and scientists. It already happened, at least in some medical publications, and eradicating it is getting harder each day...

If that scientific paper goes to proclaim that 2 + 2 = 4 – why should we bother if this finding has been reached with any AI help or not?
 
Because in medicine, unlike in math, it is rarely possible to prove anything with 100% certainty.
Much is based on trust in "authoritative" peer reviewed publications and large studies.
If this trust is lost, "voodoo" is as good as anybody's guess...
 
Will allow additional comment here over the weekend and then plan to close and Amir will finalize.

Thanks for constructive feedback and will re-review as needed.
 
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 forum and surprisingly, 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.
Would it make sense to use AI ReWrite or Summarize for our replies? If so, then should we use a blurb stating that it was rewritten by a specific AI tool...or not?

Would using AI ReWrite or Summarize for our responses make sense? If so, should we include in the blurb that a particular AI technology was used to rewrite it? [Rewritten by https://articlerewritertool.com/]
 
Would it make sense to use AI ReWrite or Summarize for our replies? If so, then should we use a blurb stating that it was rewritten by a specific AI tool...or not?
I'd say it depends on what changes AI made to the reply. If it only corrected spelling or grammer then I see no need to add anything. OTOH, if it changed what you said by adding new information, or altering what you originally wrote, or inserted references, then yes, make sure you state that your comments were edited by whatever system was involved.
 
Thank you for this information @amirm
Our views on AI are both quite aligned. I personally use AI myself to increase my productivity with some (basic) programming and server management tasks, as well as helping to write marketing emails for my business and translation for my customer service (to an extent). However I don't use AI for something I myself do not know about, nor do I post AI messages anywhere. I only use local offline AI as well which I host on my own machines (bought a W7900 to run a really great model).

It is scary to see people ask AI questions on topics they do not understand, or to quote any AI as an authoritative source. It is simply a tool that can be used to make your life easier if used properly.


Also, AI hallucinations abound. I once asked ChatGPT to create a chart comparing multiple integrated amplifiers in a company’s product line and how their feature sets, pricing, dimensions, and names evolved over time. I had wanted this information to perform searches on HifiShark to compare what was on the market and make potential purchasing decisions.

The first two products ChatGPT listed were genuine and the next three I had never heard of. I had to ask ChatGPT to double check its work and make sure the last three were not hallucinations. ChatGPT informed me that indeed the last three did not actually exist and were simply “extrapolations” that ChatGPT constructed.

Be careful, especially when relying on AI to summarize facts. A lot of what comes up will not be facts at all.
Just saw this last week when someone used Grok to do a pricelist of how to feed a family of 4 in the USA for $125 for a month... Grok simply made up prices that didn't reflect any current pricing... of the 15 or so items it listed... only one had a currently applicable price (milk).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom