Do we perhaps need another forum, perhaps as a split off this one, so that A.I.-generated and human thought-out comments are kept separate?
If you can't beat them ... [edited for format only, apart from fixing one trivial grammar error - I have made no substantive changes to the "malkie - ChatGPT" conversation]
malkie to ChatGPT wrote:I participate in a Mormonism-related discussion group.
Some participants respond to questions and comments by feeding them into a LLM such as yourself, and posting the results.
Others - most, in fact - respond with their own arguments, thoughts and musings.
Can you please suggest some pros and cons of having separate threads, or separate forums, for LLM-generated posts and comments vs. human-generated ones?
ChatGPT {1} wrote:That’s a thoughtful and timely question, especially as A.I. tools like me become increasingly integrated into online discussions. Separating LLM-generated content from human-generated posts can significantly affect the tone, quality, and dynamics of a discussion group — especially one centered on something as complex and deeply personal as religion. Here's a balanced breakdown of the **pros and cons** of separating the two types of content into different threads or forums:
**Pros of Separating LLM-Generated and Human-Generated Posts**
1. **Transparency and Trust**
* **Pro:** It helps users know who or what they are engaging with. This can build trust and clarity, especially when discussing nuanced, doctrinal, or experiential topics.
* **Example:** Someone may be more open to personal stories or faith experiences if they know they come from a real person rather than a machine.
2. **Preservation of Community Voice**
* **Pro:** Keeping human voices in a dedicated space can preserve the unique personality, humor, and emotional resonance that people bring — elements LLMs can approximate but not fully embody.
* **Use Case:** Devotional musings, personal testimonies, or speculative theological reflections may feel more authentic in a human-only space.
3. **Clarity of Purpose**
* **Pro:** A separate A.I. thread can serve as a reference library of synthesized, fact-checked, or comparative content without disrupting organic conversation.
* **Example:** An “LLM thread” could gather doctrinal overviews, historical summaries, or side-by-side comparisons of LDS views with other traditions.
4. **Avoids A.I. “Flooding” the Conversation**
* **Pro:** A.I. can generate content rapidly and in volume. A separate thread prevents A.I.-generated responses from crowding out human participants or inadvertently dominating the discourse.
ChatGPT {2} wrote: **Cons of Separating LLM-Generated and Human-Generated Posts**
1. **Fragmentation of the Discussion**
* **Con:** Splitting threads can break the natural flow of conversation. If someone posts a question, and answers are split between two places, meaningful dialogue might suffer.
* **Example:** A follow-up question might lose its context if the original discussion is bifurcated.
2. **Discourages Integration**
* **Con:** A.I. can be a useful tool for augmenting human thinking. By forcing a separation, users might miss opportunities to build on A.I. input with human reflection (or vice versa).
* **Missed Opportunity:** A human might have a more insightful take when reacting to an A.I.-summarized scripture commentary.
3. **Creates a Second-Class Status (or the Opposite)**
* **Con:** Either A.I. or human content could be seen as “lesser.” Some users might over-rely on LLMs, while others might dismiss their value altogether — especially if separated by design.
4. **Policing Becomes an Issue**
* **Con:** If posts aren’t clearly labeled, moderators or users may need to verify what's A.I.-generated, which adds administrative burden and potential conflict.
* **Example:** A user could copy-paste A.I. content into the human thread without attribution, undermining the separation principle.
ChatGPT {3} wrote: **Middle Ground Options (Hybrid Approaches)**
If you’re considering implementation or want to suggest changes, here are some **alternatives** that balance the pros and cons:
1. **Labeling Instead of Separating:**
* Encourage users to tag LLM-assisted content (e.g., `[A.I.-assisted]`) while keeping all posts in one thread.
2. **Dedicated A.I. Help Thread or Bot Channel:**
* Have a single thread or “resource hub” where people can request and post A.I.-generated summaries or comparisons.
3. **Guidelines for Attribution:**
* Ask that users clearly mark when content is generated or heavily informed by an A.I. tool.
4. **Encourage Blending with Commentary:**
* Let users post LLM outputs but include their own reflections, responses, or critiques alongside them.
ChatGPT {4} wrote: ## Final Thought
The best approach often depends on the goals of the group: Is it primarily for debate? Learning? Fellowship? If the group values personal experience and interpersonal dialogue, keeping a strong human element front and center — with A.I. as a support — often makes the most sense.
Would you like a short summary you could post to the group to spark discussion?
malkie wrote:yes, please!
by the way, the participants have pretty much identified their postings as either their own, or A.I.-generated, and usually include the prompt that they have used.
ChatGPT wrote: Great — that level of transparency already puts your group ahead of the curve. Here’s a concise summary you could post to spark thoughtful discussion about whether to separate human and A.I.-generated content into different threads or forums:
Discussion Prompt: Should We Separate A.I.-Generated and Human-Generated Posts?
As A.I. tools like ChatGPT become more common in our group, some of us have been wondering: Would it help to separate A.I.-generated content into its own thread or forum?
Potential Benefits of Separation:Potential Downsides:
- Clarity & Transparency: It’s easier to know whether you’re responding to a person or a tool.
- Preserves Personal Voice: Human responses often carry emotion, experience, and personal insight that A.I. can’t fully replicate.
- Avoids A.I. Overload: Prevents threads from being dominated by long, rapid-fire A.I. answers.
- Organized Reference Material: A.I. content (e.g. doctrinal summaries, historical overviews) could be archived in one place for easy lookup.
We’ve already been good about labeling A.I. content and including prompts, which helps a lot. The question is: Should we go further?
- Fragmented Discussion: It might split conversation across multiple threads, reducing engagement.
- Missed Integration: A.I. and human insights can complement each other when blended thoughtfully.
- Unequal Value Perception: Separation might unintentionally suggest that one type of input is more legitimate than the other.
- Extra Moderation: It could be hard to enforce the separation without extra rules or oversight.
Would love to hear your thoughts — especially on what would best support learning, respectful debate, and community-building.
ChatGPT wrote:Let me know if you'd like to tailor this for a specific tone (e.g. more casual, scholarly, or faith-oriented).
nothing of value here.
