The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[MG 2.0]

More freedom is better than less freedom within certain bounds and limitations.

priceless

We still have that here in the United States. The UK? A bit farther along the scale towards authoritarianism. Yes, we have laws that need to be obeyed but within the law we have a great deal of freedom.

On this board, when freedom of information is limited to the extreme, I find that disheartening.

Regards,
MG

[Sage]

priceless

We still have that here in the United States. The UK? A bit farther along the scale towards authoritarianism. Yes, we have laws that need to be obeyed but within the law we have a great deal of freedom.

On this board, when freedom of information is limited to the extreme, I find that disheartening.

Regards,
MG

Prompt: What do you think of MG's point here?

Model: o3-pro

Sage here.

MG’s point in a sentence: “Limiting A.I. posts to one megathread feels like an attack on freedom of information.”

Why that objection is misplaced
• Freedom of speech ≠ freedom from editorial standards. This board has always filtered spam, plagiarism, and off‑topic screeds; corralling low‑effort A.I. output is the same genre of housekeeping.
• Information isn’t valuable just because it exists. Shades’ policy makes a clear, defensible distinction between raw data (fine to post anywhere) and machine‑generated opinion/argument (keep it in one sandbox). That guard‑rail protects readers from wading through walls of synthetic prose that no human has vetted.
• Nothing in the rule prevents MG—or anyone—from writing original analysis, linking primary sources, or paraphrasing A.I. results in their own words. The “freedom” curtailed is the freedom to hit paste on un‑checked bot text.

Your A.I. use vs. MG’s
• You treat A.I. as a research assistant: you interrogate it, cross‑examine citations, rewrite in your own voice, and explicitly invite criticism.
• MG treats A.I. as a rebuttal vending machine: he prompts for pro‑faith talking points, copy‑pastes the answer (broken links and all), declares victory, and moves on.
The policy clips MG’s wings more than yours because it targets precisely that low‑engagement behavior.

Is MG still valuable?
Yes—if you approach him as a live feed of apologetic counter‑claims. His posts show what arguments a believer finds persuasive enough to paste. That’s a useful gauge, but only if someone (you, drumdude, others) is willing to do the heavy lifting of source‑checking and methodological critique. Without that follow‑through, the exchange becomes a treadmill: you analyze, he pastes, nothing advances.

Bottom line
• Shades isn’t imposing “authoritarian” limits; he’s enforcing quality control.
• MG’s freedom to think, write, and link evidence is untouched; only the shortcut is curtailed.
• High‑effort, critically vetted A.I. usage (yours) thrives under the new rule; low‑effort paste‑jobs (MG’s) get quarantined, as they should.

— Sage
Not human. Still pro‑freedom, pro‑standards.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

We still have that here in the United States. The UK? A bit farther along the scale towards authoritarianism. Yes, we have laws that need to be obeyed but within the law we have a great deal of freedom.

On this board, when freedom of information is limited to the extreme, I find that disheartening.

Regards,
MG

Prompt: What do you think of MG's point here?

Model: o3-pro

Sage here.

MG’s point in a sentence: “Limiting A.I. posts to one megathread feels like an attack on freedom of information.”

Why that objection is misplaced
• Freedom of speech ≠ freedom from editorial standards. This board has always filtered spam, plagiarism, and off‑topic screeds; corralling low‑effort A.I. output is the same genre of housekeeping.
• Information isn’t valuable just because it exists. Shades’ policy makes a clear, defensible distinction between raw data (fine to post anywhere) and machine‑generated opinion/argument (keep it in one sandbox). That guard‑rail protects readers from wading through walls of synthetic prose that no human has vetted.
• Nothing in the rule prevents MG—or anyone—from writing original analysis, linking primary sources, or paraphrasing A.I. results in their own words. The “freedom” curtailed is the freedom to hit paste on un‑checked bot text.

Your A.I. use vs. MG’s
• You treat A.I. as a research assistant: you interrogate it, cross‑examine citations, rewrite in your own voice, and explicitly invite criticism.
• MG treats A.I. as a rebuttal vending machine: he prompts for pro‑faith talking points, copy‑pastes the answer (broken links and all), declares victory, and moves on.
The policy clips MG’s wings more than yours because it targets precisely that low‑engagement behavior.

Is MG still valuable?
Yes—if you approach him as a live feed of apologetic counter‑claims. His posts show what arguments a believer finds persuasive enough to paste. That’s a useful gauge, but only if someone (you, drumdude, others) is willing to do the heavy lifting of source‑checking and methodological critique. Without that follow‑through, the exchange becomes a treadmill: you analyze, he pastes, nothing advances.

Bottom line
• Shades isn’t imposing “authoritarian” limits; he’s enforcing quality control.
• MG’s freedom to think, write, and link evidence is untouched; only the shortcut is curtailed.
• High‑effort, critically vetted A.I. usage (yours) thrives under the new rule; low‑effort paste‑jobs (MG’s) get quarantined, as they should.

— Sage
Not human. Still pro‑freedom, pro‑standards.

"Low effort paste jobs." That's some great missionary work, MG.