The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Whiskey]

The Book of Mormon is absolutely worthy of serious academic attention, and so are the other Mormon Scriptures. They’re significant American texts from the 1830s.

That is a provoking point, PG. If American history had been written in chapter form with numbered paragraphs, with “it came to pass” prose, heroes talking to God, and folklore treated as fact, we would still study it. We would just study it differently. We would laugh at parts of it, argue about authorship, trace the myths, and talk about what it says about the people who wrote it. Which is exactly what historians already do with plenty of texts. I am not saying studying the Book of Mormon is a good use of time, but I guess it deserves someone's attention.

[Physics Guy]

Yeah, it’s not worth having everyone study the Mormon Scriptures. They’re not that big a deal. But there are a lot of academics in the world. A few of them should be looking at the Mormon texts.

[malkie]

The Book of Mormon is absolutely worthy of serious academic attention, and so are the other Mormon Scriptures. They’re significant American texts from the 1830s.

That is a provoking point, PG. If American history had been written in chapter form with numbered paragraphs, with “it came to pass” prose, heroes talking to God, and folklore treated as fact, we would still study it. We would just study it differently. We would laugh at parts of it, argue about authorship, trace the myths, and talk about what it says about the people who wrote it. Which is exactly what historians already do with plenty of texts. I am not saying studying the Book of Mormon is a good use of time, but I guess it deserves someone's attention.

Hey, Limnor - they're talking about you in this thread!

[Limnor]

That is a provoking point, PG. If American history had been written in chapter form with numbered paragraphs, with “it came to pass” prose, heroes talking to God, and folklore treated as fact, we would still study it. We would just study it differently. We would laugh at parts of it, argue about authorship, trace the myths, and talk about what it says about the people who wrote it. Which is exactly what historians already do with plenty of texts. I am not saying studying the Book of Mormon is a good use of time, but I guess it deserves someone's attention.

Hey, Limnor - they're talking about you in this thread!

Haha yes!! I’d love to see a documentary hypothesis of the Book of Mormon! With a roman à clef flavor.

[malkie]

I think I've been looking at the AI "problem" in completely the wrong way - particularly in not looking beyond the surface in order to try to discern underlying causes.

MG has said that he has used AI as a "force multiplier", allowing him to somewhat redress the imbalance of the small number of defenders (mostly just himself) trying to fend off the rabid horde of critics (most of the other posters).

The real answer, I believe, is for the defenders to attract other like-minded people to join the battle.

Let me head off the inevitable objection that this board would be too offensive to the average active believer, and that only a stalwart like MG could withstand the pressure and maltreatment dished out by us nasty apostates and heretics. True disciples of Jesus have historically withstood much worse situations than anything found on this board. Especially if they stuck to the Celestial Kingdom - that's where they are headed post mortem, after all - they should find a safe enough atmosphere. For sure, anyone who served a mission in Scotland is tough enough to fight the good fight here.

If MG could find just one other, valiant like unto himself, and that person brings two friends, and they each tell two friends ... soon the critics will be begging Dr Shades to be allowed to use AI as they will otherwise crumple under the weight of the attack.

Even critics could invite TBMs they know! I'll excuse myself, however, because:
- firstly, I'm antisocial, and have never made friends easily, so I'm not close enough to any suitable candidates, and
- secondly, TBMs that I have been close to over the past 10 years or so, have been becoming inactive, or even resigning, at an alarming rate

What do you guys think?

[malkie]

Moved to its own thread: Rethinking the AI "problem"

[Whiskey]

That’s an interesting distinction—if a position needs force multipliers, it’s probably worth asking whether the issue is numbers or the claims themselves. (I tried to work in something about game theory but decided it was an overreach)

Perhaps the "force multiplier" idea is not quite right. The issue was more that (I believe) MG felt that he was required to respond to everything from everyone, and found that he could not do so on his own. I suggested to him that he pick a subset of comments/posts to be involved in, but, understandably he was reluctant to do so. I'm sure that MG will correct me if I'm misstating the issue.

Under these circumstances, even the strongest of claims may be overcome by the sheer number of responses required. MG felt that, with the help of AI, he could respond faster to more "attacks", although I believe that - as I stated elsewhere - for that to work, everyone but MG would have to submit to an AI ban.

Does that make sense?

I thought I would ask AI why people use AI. Sorta insightful, frankly. Every one of those key reasons could be a unique thread. Well, I would except the word processor item as an interesting topic. Though, it damn sure is that. Just seems not relevant.

People use AI to respond on forums for a few overlapping, very human reasons. Strip away the drama and it mostly comes down to incentives, environment, and energy.

First, volume and fatigue.
In high-friction forums, one post can trigger ten replies, many of them repetitive, snarky, or only loosely related to the original point. If someone feels compelled to answer everything, AI becomes a way to keep up without burning out. It is not about winning arguments so much as surviving the pace.

Second, asymmetry.
When one person is responding to many critics, or when replies come faster than thoughtful responses can be written, AI functions as a leveling tool. It lets one poster produce coherent responses at roughly the same rate as the incoming criticism. That is what people mean when they say “force multiplier,” even if the phrase irritates others.

Third, low perceived payoff for craftsmanship.
If careful writing, nuance, and precision are routinely met with memes, insults, or motive-reading, the incentive to handcraft responses collapses. AI becomes a rational downgrade: “Why invest twenty minutes when the environment rewards speed, not quality?”

Fourth, instrumental use rather than authorship.
Many users are not outsourcing thinking, but outsourcing mechanics. Grammar, structure, summarization, rephrasing, or compression. In that sense AI is closer to a word processor, spellchecker, or outline generator than a ghostwriter. The thinking still belongs to the user, even if the phrasing is assisted.

Fifth, detachment.
AI creates emotional distance. For people who feel personally targeted, dogpiled, or baited, using AI can reduce reactivity. It lets them respond without escalating emotionally, or at least without expending as much emotional energy.

Sixth, forum culture itself.
Ironically, forums that complain the loudest about AI often incentivize its use the most. When discussion devolves into personality battles, repetition, or ideological signaling, AI fits the culture perfectly. It is impersonal, efficient, and indifferent. In other words, it mirrors the environment.

The important point is this:
People rarely turn to AI because discussion is rich, generous, and intellectually rewarding. They turn to it when discussion feels transactional, adversarial, or endless.

If forums want less AI, the solution is not enforcement first.
It is making conversation worth the effort again. Highlight added

Seems all six apply. AI definitely hit the key points.

My take on all this.

AI is not the problem. Interest in the conversation is shallow and AI is the symptom. I think if there were less conversations about MG being a piece of crap, and less trolling of MG, you would see more content conversation and less noise. My further take, I don't think many folks are interested in any content from MG, they just want to s*** on him and they get a kick out of it.

[malkie]

Perhaps the "force multiplier" idea is not quite right. The issue was more that (I believe) MG felt that he was required to respond to everything from everyone, and found that he could not do so on his own. I suggested to him that he pick a subset of comments/posts to be involved in, but, understandably he was reluctant to do so. I'm sure that MG will correct me if I'm misstating the issue.

Under these circumstances, even the strongest of claims may be overcome by the sheer number of responses required. MG felt that, with the help of AI, he could respond faster to more "attacks", although I believe that - as I stated elsewhere - for that to work, everyone but MG would have to submit to an AI ban.

Does that make sense?

I thought I would ask AI why people use AI. Sorta insightful, frankly. Every one of those key reasons could be a unique thread. Well, I would except the word processor item as an interesting topic. Though, it damn sure is that. Just seems not relevant.

People use AI to respond on forums for a few overlapping, very human reasons. Strip away the drama and it mostly comes down to incentives, environment, and energy.

First, volume and fatigue.
In high-friction forums, one post can trigger ten replies, many of them repetitive, snarky, or only loosely related to the original point. If someone feels compelled to answer everything, AI becomes a way to keep up without burning out. It is not about winning arguments so much as surviving the pace.

Second, asymmetry.
When one person is responding to many critics, or when replies come faster than thoughtful responses can be written, AI functions as a leveling tool. It lets one poster produce coherent responses at roughly the same rate as the incoming criticism. That is what people mean when they say “force multiplier,” even if the phrase irritates others.

Third, low perceived payoff for craftsmanship.
If careful writing, nuance, and precision are routinely met with memes, insults, or motive-reading, the incentive to handcraft responses collapses. AI becomes a rational downgrade: “Why invest twenty minutes when the environment rewards speed, not quality?”

Fourth, instrumental use rather than authorship.
Many users are not outsourcing thinking, but outsourcing mechanics. Grammar, structure, summarization, rephrasing, or compression. In that sense AI is closer to a word processor, spellchecker, or outline generator than a ghostwriter. The thinking still belongs to the user, even if the phrasing is assisted.

Fifth, detachment.
AI creates emotional distance. For people who feel personally targeted, dogpiled, or baited, using AI can reduce reactivity. It lets them respond without escalating emotionally, or at least without expending as much emotional energy.

Sixth, forum culture itself.
Ironically, forums that complain the loudest about AI often incentivize its use the most. When discussion devolves into personality battles, repetition, or ideological signaling, AI fits the culture perfectly. It is impersonal, efficient, and indifferent. In other words, it mirrors the environment.

The important point is this:
People rarely turn to AI because discussion is rich, generous, and intellectually rewarding. They turn to it when discussion feels transactional, adversarial, or endless.

If forums want less AI, the solution is not enforcement first.
It is making conversation worth the effort again. Highlight added

Seems all six apply. AI definitely hit the key points.

My take on all this.

AI is not the problem. Interest in the conversation is shallow and AI is the symptom. I think if there were less conversations about MG being a piece of crap, and less trolling of MG, you would see more content conversation and less noise. My further take, I don't think many folks are interested in any content from MG, they just want to s*** on him and they get a kick out of it.

Whiskey, your (apparently) AI-generated content should be moved to the AI megathread. If you don't move it, then I expect that a mod will do so eventually. I'll respond to the content of your comment, but I wanted to make sure first that you were aware that your use of AI is breaking the forum rules

[malkie]

Perhaps the "force multiplier" idea is not quite right. The issue was more that (I believe) MG felt that he was required to respond to everything from everyone, and found that he could not do so on his own. I suggested to him that he pick a subset of comments/posts to be involved in, but, understandably he was reluctant to do so. I'm sure that MG will correct me if I'm misstating the issue.

Under these circumstances, even the strongest of claims may be overcome by the sheer number of responses required. MG felt that, with the help of AI, he could respond faster to more "attacks", although I believe that - as I stated elsewhere - for that to work, everyone but MG would have to submit to an AI ban.

Does that make sense?

I thought I would ask AI why people use AI. Sorta insightful, frankly. Every one of those key reasons could be a unique thread. Well, I would except the word processor item as an interesting topic. Though, it damn sure is that. Just seems not relevant.

People use AI to respond on forums for a few overlapping, very human reasons. Strip away the drama and it mostly comes down to incentives, environment, and energy.

First, volume and fatigue.
In high-friction forums, one post can trigger ten replies, many of them repetitive, snarky, or only loosely related to the original point. If someone feels compelled to answer everything, AI becomes a way to keep up without burning out. It is not about winning arguments so much as surviving the pace.

Second, asymmetry.
When one person is responding to many critics, or when replies come faster than thoughtful responses can be written, AI functions as a leveling tool. It lets one poster produce coherent responses at roughly the same rate as the incoming criticism. That is what people mean when they say “force multiplier,” even if the phrase irritates others.

Third, low perceived payoff for craftsmanship.
If careful writing, nuance, and precision are routinely met with memes, insults, or motive-reading, the incentive to handcraft responses collapses. AI becomes a rational downgrade: “Why invest twenty minutes when the environment rewards speed, not quality?”

Fourth, instrumental use rather than authorship.
Many users are not outsourcing thinking, but outsourcing mechanics. Grammar, structure, summarization, rephrasing, or compression. In that sense AI is closer to a word processor, spellchecker, or outline generator than a ghostwriter. The thinking still belongs to the user, even if the phrasing is assisted.

Fifth, detachment.
AI creates emotional distance. For people who feel personally targeted, dogpiled, or baited, using AI can reduce reactivity. It lets them respond without escalating emotionally, or at least without expending as much emotional energy.

Sixth, forum culture itself.
Ironically, forums that complain the loudest about AI often incentivize its use the most. When discussion devolves into personality battles, repetition, or ideological signaling, AI fits the culture perfectly. It is impersonal, efficient, and indifferent. In other words, it mirrors the environment.

The important point is this:
People rarely turn to AI because discussion is rich, generous, and intellectually rewarding. They turn to it when discussion feels transactional, adversarial, or endless.

If forums want less AI, the solution is not enforcement first.
It is making conversation worth the effort again. Highlight added

Seems all six apply. AI definitely hit the key points.

My take on all this.

AI is not the problem. Interest in the conversation is shallow and AI is the symptom. I think if there were less conversations about MG being a piece of crap, and less trolling of MG, you would see more content conversation and less noise. My further take, I don't think many folks are interested in any content from MG, they just want to s*** on him and they get a kick out of it.

Starting at the end, for now, I agree that AI is not the problem. Recently someone (perhaps you) said that the board needs MG more than MG needs the board. I meant to reply at the time, but got sidetracked. I disagree completely. The board manages just fine during MG's absences, and us critics, friendly non-believers, and non-Mormons - including a couple of never-Mos - manage to have substantial conversations without him.

Just as it appears that MG feels he has to respond to every implied criticism of Mormonism, you can pretty much guarantee that someone will call him out on derails and trollish behaviour. And it's the right of posters to do so, and not simply let him off with absolutely anything and everything.

Yes, the AI responses you posted are interesting, and I believe they contain some truth in this context. I don't think that any of them, however, is exactly news. Some were discussed explicitly on this board when AI use first looked to be a problem. I believe that the first and second points are very close to the reason I started this topic, based on comments that MG has made.

The third point is a biggie. But it's not just a matter of AI being used instead of taking time to craft a response - it's also AI being used instead of taking time to think. As I and others have pointed out, it becomes an issue when the poster who pastes an AI response cannot provide an ongoing discussion based on the pasted content, because the poster may not have recognised errors, inconsistencies, and irrelevancies,, and so is ill-equipped to argue the point.

There were a couple of attempts to find compromise solutions, before Dr Shades made the final executive decision. Each attempt was rendered infeasible due to bending and sometimes outright breaking of the interim rules.

[Gadianton]

I thought I would ask AI why people use AI.

Except you didn't post your prompt, which ends up being one the main issues with people using AI, in particular, MG's use. All your examples were flattering for the AI user, or at least makes the AI user the victim, suggesting you biased the AI toward a noble answer.

Is it a problem when people on Internet forums post AI responses but don't post the prompts used to generate the AI response? What are the main two reasons why a person would not include their prompt along with the AI's response?

I'll skip the wall of text, unless requested to post it, and provide deepseek's summary:

Conclusion
Omitting the prompt fundamentally undermines the collaborative and investigative spirit of most forums. While sometimes done out of mere oversight or a mistaken belief in efficiency, it can also be a deliberate tactic to present AI outputs with more authority or to protect one's prompting strategy. For AI-generated content to be truly useful and trustworthy in community discussions, sharing the prompt should be a standard practice, akin to citing sources or showing one's work in a calculation.