Should we completely ban AI generated content in the forum?

While I don’t like AI and the effect it’s having on our water supply in Oregon, I think bans become problematic, with people having to scrutinize others’ comments for its presence.

I much prefer to keep things the way they are, where people can comfortably say that their source is AI, and others can then comment as to a statement’s veracity.

On this forum, people tend to be refreshingly comfortable about disagreeing with others, usually quite kindly.

I don’t think it should be completely banned, but I would like people to get away from copying/pasting entire AI-generated responses. I’d rather hear the posters take on the AI output and maybe even how their question/search was posed as I’ve seen results biased one way or another based on what AI thinks you want to hear.

Very interesting perspectives shared so far. I’ll leave it open for a few more days to give everyone a chance to chime in

This is the “go-to” forum for hearing aids. It has changed my life related to DIY. If anything is openly banned I will quit.

Hi @birdcountry99 If an editor first reads the AI generated content, then types it as human, it would be ok? How do you want to control this? What if I use DeepL to simply translate my Swissgerman German accent into proper English for this forum, is it “AI” too?
I love the question by Abram btw, it is super super actual. I just have the impression a simple yes/no does not nail it.

As very often “it depends” how I use it, how I interprete the result. Finally it is still my “human” decision to write a post, no?

@Michael_Phonak said:

What if I use DeepL to simply translate my Swissgerman German accent into proper English for this forum, is it “AI” too?

We’re really talking about large language models (LLM’s), not AI in general.

Abram, with respect, this thread has drifted far from the purpose of this forum. Turning it into a vote on banning tools feels like the wrong focus. I’m here for practical guidance on hearing aids, not abstract policy debates—can we redirect back to that?

AI is not really Intelligent yet. It’s actually quite a way off. Not sure we really want to replace intelligent people with something that is learning to lie and hallucinates. How is that better?

If I want to ask AI something I will do so. If I want to ask people with real experience or share experiences then I will come to the forum.

It’s funny how the opinions are all over the place on this one Does AI already have human-level intelligence? The evidence is clear5

@hearingMac said:

Abram, with respect, this thread has drifted far from the purpose of this forum. Turning it into a vote on banning tools feels like the wrong focus. I’m here for practical guidance on hearing aids, not abstract policy debates—can we redirect back to that?

Thanks, I hear what you’re saying. I know it may not be of interest to most people, but for some of the people here, this is a hot topic and it seems a hashing out was needed. Nearly there, I think.

I totally agree. AI can be a very helpful research tool. That does not mean that people are posting AI generated posts on this forum. For me. I ask questions here about certain Phonak programs for my Sphere Ultra’s based on what other Ultra users have said about the manual Deepsonic voice in loud noise program because my Provider and one of the first Phonak audiologists did not seem to have the real world knowledge to program it to get me to the successful place that other users on the forum are experiencing. I did ask Chat a few questions and discuessed the responses with Phonal. Some of it helped because the Phonak AuD was clear that Phonak’s language is something Chat does not use in describing settings. That said a few of the Chat points were good points that added to the conversation, but to be clear when it came down to programing change decisions from the senior AuD completely directed our changes not AI. AI is just one information source and tool in my opinion that can help people in different ways totally unrelated to hearing. I use it for specific things and frankly I am very aware that it is more like a college freshman and its level of work must be overseen and managed. It has a long way to go and I believe as users of any technology it is we that will direct and decide what we benefit from and do mot benefit from. I think too many people think AI will take over the world. Like is not a sci-fi movie. Chat is a damn tool, get over it.

Late to this discussion, but it is a pet peeve for me on all forums.

I voted to ban, but should explain a little more why.

By all means use AI for initially researching a topic (in fact it is hard not to), but always check the source data the AI references in answers. Very often if you check the source data it is different (often very different) to the AI summary. The AI is looking at everything from true peer reviewed research to posts on here or reddit to “learn”

I would prefer no one posts anything from an AI summary (although that is hard to police), but if you quote a reference provide the link to the actual source data (not the AI) so we know where the information came from and can make our judgement on the credibility.

@coastal_california said:

I would prefer no one posts anything from an AI summary (although that is hard to police), but if you quote a reference provide the link to the actual source data (not the AI) so we know where the information came from and can make our judgement on the credibility.

This. So much is ai said such and such, which no explanation and the expectation that it be taken as gospel.

WH

If I wanted AI’s answer to a question, I’d ask AI. When people post in this forum, I’m assuming they want human answers. AI has never worn hearing aids, so it’s not qualified to give opinions. AI is also an ecological nightmare and was developed by stealing the intellectual property of writers, photographers, artists, musicians, and so on.