The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Marcus]

There’s an inherent problem with the A.I. Rule that Shades has put in place to prevent MG 2.0 spamming threads with A.I. generated content that he portrays, dishonestly, as if it’s his own words. It’s that Shades has allowed for A.I. generated content ”factual” content to be used - the example Shades gave was of a scripture.

You make a good point. Fortunately, that problem wasn't written into the rule itself; it's only in the post you quoted wherein I gave an example of a very strict circumstance where it wouldn't be problematic. I doubt anyone other than MG 2.0 will have a problem with misinterpreting it. Considering his recent lapse, though, I don't think leaving that example out would've changed his behavior.

Continually expecting MG to do the right thing and manage himself, after so many examples of where he has promised to do so and then immediately shown he has no intention of doing so, is a fool’s errand.

I don't typically publicly state when I've issued someone a suspension, because I don't like to embarrass anyone, but in this case I feel the need to inform you that I issued MG 2.0 a very brief suspension for violating the A.I.-generated content rule yet again so he knows we're serious about it. Therefore, it's not necessary to claim that I let another of his violations stand without consequence

How long is "very brief" ? Given that he has had over a dozen posts moved, including three more tonight, specifically because he violated the 'A.I.-generated content' rule, AFTER it was in place and AFTER he received multiple public posts from you personally and specifically explaining the rule to him in excruciating detail, I hope it was long enough to have some impact.

[Dr. Shades]

MG 2.0, I have to reprove you with sharpness, so I'll need to use black text and not red text for this post.

Do you dispute that this list presents an accurate assessment?

DAMN IT, MG 2.0, THE RULE AGAINST USING A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT IS ***NOT*** BECAUSE A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT IS INACCURATE!! THE RULE AGAINST USING A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT APPLIES TO A.I.-GENERATE CONTENT THAT (you believe) IS 100% ACCURATE, TOO! MERE ACCURACY IS ***NOT*** THE ISSUE!

By the way, I'm not aware of any rule that outlaws using the internet, including search, to find information, read it, digest it, and post the findings. I'm absolutely sure that others use the internet to locate and find information...read it, digest it, and post their findings.

DAMN IT, MG 2.0, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE INTERNET IN GENERAL! WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT IN SPECIFIC!

I approve the list. I wouldn't post it, if I didn't.

DAMN IT AGAIN, MG 2.0!! THE RULE IS ***NOT*** MERELY ABOUT PROHIBITING YOU FROM POSTING A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT YOU ***DON'T*** AGREE WITH! THE RULE PROHIBITS YOU FROM POSTING A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT YOU ***DO*** AGREE WITH, TOO!! MERE AGREEMENT IS ***NOT*** THE ISSUE!

It's not just a random wall of text. It's a list.

Far be it from me to blaspheme, but Jesus Christ, MG 2.0, THE RULE IS ***NOT*** MERELY AGAINST POSTING A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT THAT APPEARS IN THE FORM OF "RANDOM WALLS OF TEXT!" THE RULE APPLIES TO ***ALL*** A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT, EVEN CONTENT THAT APPEARS IN THE FORM OF A LIST!!

Remember when you were still raising your kids and you wanted them to just obey your rules as stated instead of looking for loopholes to justify disobeying them? And how you reprimanded them many times over the years whenever they tried to do it yet again? APPLY THIS TO YOU, YOURSELF, HERE AND NOW.

NO LOOPHOLES, MG. 2.0. YOU ARE ***NOT*** THE EXCEPTION. YOUR OWN A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT, WHILE NO DOUBT BRILLIANT, IS ***NOT*** THE EXCEPTION.

We have let [Marcus's] accusations, etc., stand without board discipline, even though I have continually called her out.

Her "accusations, etc.," were generated within her own mind, which is the only content we want here. Her accusations, etc. were ***NOT*** A.I.-generated! If they were, they wouldn't be allowed, either! So no, we're not letting her get away with something we're NOT letting you get away with.

For me to go through and do the 'armchair psychoanalysis' thing would be time consuming and very possibly not near as accurate and concise as the list I used, . . .

I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that THAT'S A RISK WE'RE WILLING TO TAKE. It's a time-honored tradition to do armchair psychoanalysis here, and taking the required time to do so hasn't stopped anyone before. . . and I'm sure it didn't stop you, either, before the invention of ChatGPT.

With that in mind, let's review Universal Rule #10 itself:

All A.I.-generated text may only be posted within the appropriate forums' artificial intelligence megathreads, found here for Mormon-related topics and here for non-Mormon topics. Additionally, do not post any links to anything in those threads (just send the person whom you want to see the text a private message pointing it out). For additional information, see here.

To simplify, outside of an artificial intelligence megathread, . . .

• DO NOT POST ANY A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT, EVEN CONTENT THAT IS ACCURATE.
• DO NOT POST ANY A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT, EVEN CONTENT THAT YOU AGREE WITH.
• DO NOT POST ANY A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT, EVEN CONTENT THAT IS A LIST.
• DO NOT POST ANY A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT, EVEN CONTENT THAT SAVES YOU TIME.

As we fine tune A.I. use, I will abide by any forthcoming tweaks. . . I think we're all having to learn and adjust to this new age of A.I.

Great! Here's the forthcoming tweak that will help you learn and adjust to this new age of A.I.:

1. You, MG 2.0, may NOT have multiple browser windows or tabs open that contain BOTH discussmormonism.com and an A.I. chat bot (or anything like unto it) at the same time. You may only have one or the other open, but never both.
2. If you, MG 2.0, have an artificial intelligence window or tab open, you may NOT left-click and drag your mouse across any part of it.
3. If you, MG 2.0, have an artificial intelligence window or tab open, you may NOT right-click anywhere within it.
4. If you, MG 2.0, have an artificial intelligence window or tab open, you may NOT simultaneously click "Ctrl" and "C" on your keyboard.
5. If you, MG 2.0, have a discussmormonism.com window or tab open, you may NOT right-click anywhere within it.
6. If you, MG 2.0, have a discussmormonism.com window or tab open, you may NOT simultaneously click "Ctrl" and "V" on your keyboard.

Please let me know if you need any further clarification to any part of the above.

[I Have Questions]

The only explanation left is that he violated a very simple rule, on purpose and repeatedly, across multiple threads, with the express intent of disrupting the board.

You’ve hit the nail on the head.

[I Have Questions]

You make a good point. Fortunately, that problem wasn't written into the rule itself; it's only in the post you quoted wherein I gave an example of a very strict circumstance where it wouldn't be problematic. I doubt anyone other than MG 2.0 will have a problem with misinterpreting it. Considering his recent lapse, though, I don't think leaving that example out would've changed his behavior.


I don't typically publicly state when I've issued someone a suspension, because I don't like to embarrass anyone, but in this case I feel the need to inform you that I issued MG 2.0 a very brief suspension for violating the A.I.-generated content rule yet again so he knows we're serious about it. Therefore, it's not necessary to claim that I let another of his violations stand without consequence

How long is "very brief" ? Given that he has had over a dozen posts moved, including three more tonight, specifically because he violated the 'A.I.-generated content' rule, AFTER it was in place and AFTER he received multiple public posts from you personally and specifically explaining the rule to him in excruciating detail, I hope it was long enough to have some impact.

It’s not my board, and Shades is free to operate it how he sees fit. However, my opinion is that it should be a clear and transparent system. So if a posters behaviour gets to a point where a ban is necessary, the first step is a 1 week ban. For a second offence it would be a month long ban. And a third offence would see that poster banned for life (because if you cannot control your behaviour within the boards framework of acceptability after two such warnings, you never will). And let’s be honest, there’s only 1 poster struggling with the concept of posting within the board’s existing framework of acceptability. Deliberately so in my opinion.

If MG’s ban is for less than a week, it’s meaningless (in my opinion).