The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[MG 2.0]

I do believe that research can be done by using A.I.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. But you're the boss! I just think you have it wrong in this instance.

I do appreciate your work to provide this venue for folks to talk. Unfortunately there are, in my opinion, at least one and maybe two individuals that make life miserable when they literally troll my posts and come right up behind me to through things out of kilter.

Nothing to stop that I guess. But it is very bothersome. It's happened too many times to be non purposeful. It's intentional. I wish there was a rule against THAT.

Regards,
MG

Dammit, MG!

Nobody is disagreeing with your statement that "research can be done by using A.I."

How many times does this have to be said‽‽‽‽‽

Perhaps your constant repetition of this kind of nonsense helps to explain why some folks accuse you of trolling. How can you - how can anyone - not understand that there is absolutely nothing wrong, and nothing against the board rules, in using A.I. to do research.

Sheesh!

Thank you for that clarification! I wonder if there might be a misunderstanding on that. I'm using it for research and getting lambasted for it.

By the way, the use of colorful language does indeed add some real power and authority to your post! I do appreciate your clarification that A.I. can be used for research. I hope the moderators and board owner are in agree with that

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Dammit, MG!

Nobody is disagreeing with your statement that "research can be done by using A.I."

How many times does this have to be said‽‽‽‽‽

Perhaps your constant repetition of this kind of nonsense helps to explain why some folks accuse you of trolling. How can you - how can anyone - not understand that there is absolutely nothing wrong, and nothing against the board rules, in using A.I. to do research.

Sheesh!

Thank you for that clarification! I wonder if there might be a misunderstanding on that. I'm using it for research and getting lambasted for it.

By the way, the use of colorful language does indeed add some real power and authority to your post! I do appreciate your clarification that A.I. can be used for research. I hope the moderators and board owner are in agree with that

Regards,
MG

The moderators and board owner have already expressed their approval. MG, there seems to be a serious disconnect between what almost everyone is telling you and what you understand. You are not getting lambasted for using AI for research.

The problem is not using AI for research - it's how you are using AI-generated text in your posts.

Shades/mods - I'm going to flag this comment to bring it to your attention, and ask you to validate the following suggestion, or modify it, or tell me that it's completely wrong. If it's completely off kilter, I apologise for bothering you with it.

Here's my suggestion: Look at the Purdue University OWL - Online Writing Lab - section on Avoiding Plagiarism.

Use AI all you want for research, but treat AI-generated content as if it were the published words of a human author that you had read in a book. With the lessons on "Avoiding Plagiarism" in mind, in your own words, write your own paraphrase/precis of what you read, properly attributed. The extra piece of information needed here is that you must also include the name of the AI you used and the full prompt text.

This new text is yours, and can be used on this board outside of the AI megathread.

[malkie]

Added: this does not guarantee that your paraphrase/precis is an accurate reflection of what the AI gave you, or that the AI-generated text you based you work on was accurate to begin with.

What it does do is force you to engage with the AI text, develop your own understanding of it, and take ownership of what you write - that is, you need to think about both what you started with and what you end up with. And you have to be able to defend what you end up with - it's yours.

[Marcus]

Mg's repeated assertions, in which he blatantly misunderstands malkie's, Shades', and others' points in a way no educated adult would, along with his mocking of malkie's tone, are just further evidence that he is here for no other reason than to provoke and disrupt.

[malkie]

Mg's repeated assertions, in which he blatantly misunderstands malkie's, Shades', and others' points in a way no educated adult would, along with his mocking of malkie's tone, are just further evidence that he is here for no othr reason than to provoke and disrupt.

Actually, Marcus, I didn't mind the mockery so much - I smiled at it.

Here's a story from when I was young, that may or may not be relevant.

My mother was helping my brother with homework for addition . Let's say that the question was 6 + 8. My brother answered: 7, 10, 20, 15, 13, 16, 12, ...

Eventually my dad told my mum to stop. He said: "Look at all the answers he has given. He's mentioned almost every possible number except the correct answer. Clearly, to do that, he must know what the correct answer is, and he's determined not to say it."

[Marcus]

Mg's repeated assertions, in which he blatantly misunderstands malkie's, Shades', and others' points in a way no educated adult would, along with his mocking of malkie's tone, are just further evidence that he is here for no othr reason than to provoke and disrupt.

Actually, Marcus, I didn't mind the mockery so much - I smiled at it.

Here's a story from when I was young, that may or may not be relevant.

My mother was helping my brother with homework for addition . Let's say that the question was 6 + 8. My brother answered: 7, 10, 20, 15, 13, 16, 12, ...

Eventually my dad told my mum to stop. He said: "Look at all the answers he has given. He's mentioned almost every possible number except the correct answer. Clearly, to do that, he must know what the correct answer is, and he's determined not to say it."

Excellent story. Very, very pertinent!

[Marcus]

Unfortunately even when I was using Perplexity or Gemini and then giving the disclosure, "I approve this message", it still wasn't good enough.

I still believe, as my recent posts make clear, that A.I. was something that was considering anethema on the board because it actually allowed one person playing defense against a whole offensive (no pun intended) team to respond in a timely manner without having to dedicate one's life to the cause

Most of your AI "responses" ended up being off topic, or very loosely directed towards the comments you were "responding" to. In other words, what you were really trying to do is disrupt the board in revenge for its criticisms of you or the Church. AI allowed you to bury threads with drivel that you hadn't even read yourself...

[emphasis added.]

My sentiments exactly.

[I Have Questions]

MG, if neither yourself nor IHQ is using AI-generated content, then you are both presumably on equal footing. Why would A.I. be required to refute IHQ’s claims or opinions?

One issue I’ve seen with A.I. is its tendency to hallucinate, which can result in the output sometimes not reflecting actual fact or reality. Unless you are meticulously fact-checking that output, it may turn out that the A.I. response isn’t really refuting an argument or reflecting the supposed work or opinion of another real person. This is apparent from the recent HHS MAHA fiasco where the report submitted to Congress contained numerous fake AI-generated citations. I’ve also tested A.I.’s ability to capture conversations from this board and found that it often incorrectly attributed the remarks of one participant to another.

A.I. content can be used to assist with replies, but deferring to cutting and pasting it into posts as opposed to vetting and restructuring that information is the problem that we would like to avoid.

canpakes, please can we move these A.I. discussion posts to the A.I. mega thread as I think this discussion belongs in there, rather than cluttering up a thread about the limited geography model?

As requested, split to the A.I. thread on 07.17 -c-

Thank you for moving the attempted derail.

[MG 2.0]

Added: this does not guarantee that your paraphrase/precis is an accurate reflection of what the A.I. gave you, or that the AI-generated text you based you work on was accurate to begin with.

What it does do is force you to engage with the A.I. text, develop your own understanding of it, and take ownership of what you write - that is, you need to think about both what you started with and what you end up with. And you have to be able to defend what you end up with - it's yours.

I appreciate your suggestions, malkie. To some extent, more or less, that's what I had been doing lately before the what seemed to be...final word.

I'm actually tired of the whole thing. Contrary to the accusations of a few my intent was not to disrupt but to add to the value of the conversations.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

This bears repeating, as the mentalgymnast seems to be attempting his usual re-write of history:

Unfortunately even when I was using Perplexity or Gemini and then giving the disclosure, "I approve this message", it still wasn't good enough.

I still believe, as my recent posts make clear, that A.I. was something that was considering anethema on the board because it actually allowed one person playing defense against a whole offensive (no pun intended) team to respond in a timely manner without having to dedicate one's life to the cause

Most of your AI "responses" ended up being off topic, or very loosely directed towards the comments you were "responding" to. In other words, what you were really trying to do is disrupt the board in revenge for its criticisms of you or the Church. AI allowed you to bury threads with drivel that you hadn't even read yourself....

[emphasis added.]