Timeline for Should we request a banner to communicate our policy regarding generative AI in posts?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 2024 at 13:34 | history | edited | HoidStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 16, 2024 at 13:27 | vote | accept | Thomas OwensMod | ||
| Apr 16, 2024 at 13:22 | answer | added | HoidStaffMod | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 17, 2024 at 1:00 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
|
|
| Feb 3, 2024 at 12:23 | answer | added | Ewan | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 16, 2024 at 13:22 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 14, 2024 at 18:53 | answer | added | Doc Brown | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 11, 2024 at 12:45 | comment | added | Doc Brown | ... @ThomasOwens: or what is your opinion on machine translations by tools like "DeepL" or Google Translate? Today, they are surely AI tools Does their output count as "generative AI content"? There is this Meta.SO question, where the top answer says "no", but does our community agree on this? | |
| Jan 10, 2024 at 14:34 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @ThomasOwens: fair enough. Since you asked "Is our current policy of removing all generative AI content, even when cited, still the desired wish of the community?", I was wondering how far this rule of "removing all generative AI content" should go. What about content where only phrasing and grammar was improved? I asked this question on Meta.SE, but from the reactions there is seems clear this can only be answered individually on each SE site. I think it might worth trying to discuss this here. | |
| Jan 10, 2024 at 12:39 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @DocBrown Yes, but I don't see how that matters. There are only four possible answers to this question: yes/banner, no/banner, yes/no banner, no/no banner. The answer to question 1 dictates which banner is applied. I would interpret any up vote on my answer to be in support of yes/banner and a down vote to be against yes/banner and ideally someone would propose one of the remaining three options. | |
| Jan 10, 2024 at 6:12 | comment | added | Doc Brown | Did you notice: you asked two questions in one, where both could be answered independently with yes or no. That takes voters the option of signaling agreement or disagreement individually (or we need four different answers to vote on for/against AI content, for/against a banner). Unfortunately, since you have added only one answer which collected certain votes, we cannot find out any more if those votes are for the AI policy or for the banner or both. | |
| Jan 5, 2024 at 22:52 | answer | added | Thomas OwensMod | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jan 5, 2024 at 21:34 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @JonH You should bring this to an answer. However, as of right now, we do not allow any AI generated content here. Even if cited, it will be deleted. This is a good opportunity to explain why you think that allowing AI content should be permitted. | |
| Jan 5, 2024 at 18:05 | comment | added | JonH | As long as the content is cited I do not see an issue with that. I think we allow AI content and that it is cited and then allow this banner mentioning this. | |
| Jan 5, 2024 at 14:47 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @BartvanIngenSchenau No. It's not a flag type. In my experience, it's a mix of custom flags, not an answer flags, and abusive flags. I don't know a good way to get the number of flags. And that would exclude anything handled on sight without a flag. I will say it's not immensely high - we don't have a ton of flags to begin with. | |
| Jan 5, 2024 at 13:01 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | Are there any statistics on the number of posts with AI content that gets removed? | |
| Jan 5, 2024 at 11:51 | history | asked | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |