site banner

Rule Change Discussion: AI produced content

There has been some recent usage of AI that has garnered a lot of controversy

There were multiple different highlighted moderator responses where we weighed in with different opinions

The mods have been discussing this in our internal chat. We've landed on some shared ideas, but there are also some differences left to iron out. We'd like to open up the discussion to everyone to make sure we are in line with general sentiments. Please keep this discussion civil.

Some shared thoughts among the mods:

  1. No retroactive punishments. The users linked above that used AI will not have any form of mod sanctions. We didn't have a rule, so they didn't break it. And I thought in all cases it was good that they were honest and up front about the AI usage. Do not personally attack them, follow the normal rules of courtesy.
  2. AI generated content should be labelled as such.
  3. The user posting AI generated content is responsible for that content.
  4. AI generated content seems ripe for different types of abuse and we are likely to be overly sensitive to such abuses.

The areas of disagreement among the mods:

  1. How AI generated content can be displayed. (off site links only, or quoted just like any other speaker)
  2. What AI usage implies for the conversation.
  3. Whether a specific rule change is needed to make our new understanding clear.

Edit 1 Another point of general agreement among the mods was that talking about AI is fine. There would be no sort of topic ban of any kind. This rule discussion is more about how AI is used on themotte.

15
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

TLDR: mod on content, not provenance.

A good post is enjoyable to read and it is well argued. Somebody who is using AI in some way to post more interesting, well-argued essays than they could write entirely by hand is improving the Motte, and should be encouraged. Using AI to post low-effort walls of text should be a bannable offence.

Specifically:

  • AI-written or edited content should be labelled clearly.
  • AI use should be considered a strong aggravating factor for low-effort or poor discussion, and should quickly escalate to bans if needed. The quality bar should be kept high for AI-adjacent content.
  • Otherwise, do nothing.

Yes, this is subjective, but all of our rules are subjective. In practice, I trust the mods to handle it.

TLDR: mod on content, not provenance.

Except the use of AI qualitatively changes the nature of the content, your own suggestions hint at this. A "handwritten low-effort wall of text" is pretty much a contradiction in terms, it probably deserves a gentlemen's C by default. If someone put in the time to write it, even if the arguments are hot garbage, other things ngs being equal you can assume they care, that they want to be taken seriously, that they want to improve, etc. None of this holds true when you post AI slop, because you can generate it with all the effort of writing a one-line sneer.

If you're asking for clear labelling and recommending that the use of AI be taken with a presumption of low-effort, you're already moderating on provenance.

A "handwritten low-effort wall of text" is pretty much a contradiction in terms

If average American political consumers started writing walls of text here, we would (and should) start moderating them. Doing the same to AI is fine.

Except a big reason we don't have them in the first place is that we have the longpoast filter. It's the number one complaint of dramanauts, and le average redittors (at least the ones that don't run away screaming about Nazis).

If we came across one that managed to string together a longer sentence by himself, but still didn't make the cut of what we expect here, I don't think it would be proper to ban them on sight. They're obviously trying, and the effort should be commended. With AI there is no effort, so it should be banned on sight.