Thanks for elaborating on your reasoning. However, I still have questions.
How was urgently overriding the moderators' mandate a conclusion?
Your exposition does not at all reveal how such an outrageous action could be the result of your analysis.
Why not merely halt suspensions?
If this is the part you were actually having trouble with, I'm sure temporarily allowing the users who posted AI-generated content to remain on the site would have been a more appropriate solution to the actual problem you were apparently trying to solve, and somewhat more palatable to the moderators, if not outright embraced by them.
If you also wanted to allow alleged AI-generated content to remain on the site, even that could have been more acceptable than what you ended up with. We already have mechanisms for marking content as contested; for example, disabling voting on the reported posts would prevent the OP from using these posts to improve (or ruin) their reputation.
Again, why is the accuracy of automatic detectors important?
Reading between the lines, I guess you are looking for ways to validate the moderators' actions. But why? You don't need a "rudeness estimation tool" to validate suspensions for rude behavior, or proof that promotional posts are genuinely spam, as opposed to honest mistakes by over-eager marketers (actually a really thorny problem in its own right).
You rely on the moderators to make these calls every day, and on the CMs to handle appeals for all of these other cases. Why is this process not acceptable for AI-generated answers? Because it's harder? That's precisely why the community regards them as particularly problematic, you know.
What's with the alleged cultural bias?
You originally claimed the ChatGPT suspensions might have "biases for or against residents of specific countries". In spite of requests to clarify this, I have yet to see any attempt to explain this allegation.
The best speculations I have seen are that some users who are not fluent in English might have been suspended because they used ChatGPT to create their posts. Is that what this is about? How is that a bias for or against residents of specific countries? I would think it would indiscriminately penalize anybody who is incapable of writing coherent sentences in standard English (which includes a portion of the native speakers of English as well).
More tangentially, I have some speculations about the dynamics of the ChatGPT eruption.
Where did we go?
Did users who previously posted answers actually stay on the site?
In particular, did they stop posting answers, but spend more time curating content?
You should be able to see which users stopped visiting vs which users merely stopped contributing answers, vs perhaps also which users flagged posts more often than previously.
Did ChatGPT users get better at evading detection?
Like in many adversarial scenarios, you would expect both sides to evolve.
In the first wave, you would expect many users to get the same bright idea, get caught, and learn from the experience.
While some would simply learn that the community didn't like their attempt at gaming the system, and stop doing that, others would take this as a new challenge to overcome.
My concrete speculation is that this is what accounts, at least partially, for the falling rate of detected ChatGPT answers in recent weeks.
