Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Should we completely ban AI generated content in the forum?

This topic is closed.

58 replies1.4k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic
36 people in this conversation25 min readJump to latest
Edited

I will continue to do my resreaching to answer questions. And unfortunately that means is used by every search engine available nowadays.

I voted yes for a complete ban, but I’d be OK with something like:

“ is generally banned. However if you feel posting AI content is hugely beneficial, then keep it brief, flag it as AI, and you have say that you can vouch for its accuracy.”

I agree that generated content should be identified as such. Current members often site the web page where they found some information they are quoting.
It is considerate and adds credibility.

In reply to @AbramBaileyAuD

Voted no. is useful to get get quick technical answers, like if I quickly need to know the cord length of my vacuum cleaner- it will dig that info up without me having to retrieve pdfs and digging into manuals, or having to measure it. This information tends to be reliable.

HOWEVER those who use it here should always cite the original (human) sources.

Edited

I have voted No to in forum - see my post in the topic - Should we ban AI. The reason being is that AI is just not ready to be used as a reliable source of data yet and may never be largely because AI really struggles with nuance because it lacks real world life experience that human beings enjoy.

Edit: I just realised that my post seem to suggest that I was saying no to the ban, when I meant No to AI. I have edited the wording. I vote yes for the AI ban just to be clear. Sorry for not being more clear.

In reply to @kev716

@kev716 said:

I’d prefer requiring posters to label their content as generated by AI rather than a total ban.

Yes, I’d be happier with this - especially if there was a mandated use of a different colour and font to keep the distinction clear over original/personal thought.

I voted NO but as others have mentioned, it’s so widely used by search engines. I do not trust the source of some data because data can be manipulated and influenced by funding criteria.

I voted no but content should clearly identify . I view AI as nothing more than an opinion. I respect comments on this forum but I also treat them as opinion not necessarily fact. A provider’s opinion tends to carry more weight. Think - What’s the best hearing aid?” Hint: the one that works best for me.

Voted no because the moderators don’t need any more work! And because I find that A.I. contributions are easily enough judged on their merit the same as human contributions. Both frequently include opinion elements, and perhaps someone will eventually do a study to judge the percentage of opinion in each. For now I’m guessing that human contributions have a larger component of pure opinion, itself backed up by limited anecdotes. We tend to accept anecdotes as a good basis for conclusions, and A.I. can harvest a galaxy of them.

I voted yes.

My biggest complaint is the copy and paste of lengthy information. I enjoy reading this forum until I run into these huge attachments.

It’s funny that many of the AI answers come from this forum which we all know isn’t all that correct at times.

AI takes the human out of the forum. I enjoy the different personalities of the members. Over time we get to know each other. AI has no personality.

I agree with the opinions versus facts but that’s life. It’s part of the forum personality that I enjoy.

I’m neutral on this because, while I don’t want generated content to questions because I can ask on AI myself. I do advocate for the use of AI in accessibility or literacy where a user is not confident in their ability to write a reply and use AI to spell check or improve grammatical accuracy. Where AI is used as an assistive technology I would feel hypocritical to be against is as a person that requires every assistance in hearing that I can get.

@AbramBaileyAuD may I also say thank you for consulting peoples opinions on this subject. You may be fascinated to know that some workplaces are seeking to implement strict bans on that the use of AI in hearing aids and captioning technology may become problematic.

I am going to say something that will cause people to hate me. Nowadays too many people take what they read and hear literally. There is more false information on the internet than truth. There is also half truths. That also goes for our news media, social media and even advise for way too many doctors, lawyers and most specifically politicians. I have learned to take everything with a grain of salt. Read and verify, I have been guilty of not always verifying too. can be life saving but it can also be the death of humanity. People don’t be lazy. Do your research and verify and use common sense to reason out what is best for you. When it comes to hearing loss there is no one shoe fits all.

Voted no. We should be able to take responsibility for anything that we post anywhere, therefore information should be verified regardless of whether it is from Al or not before posting. Factual information needs to be evidence-based regardless of the source.

Would suggest adding a disclaimer if Al has used. Al is embedded in everything nowadays but how we use it is key.

Voted no. The usefulness and appropriateness of lies in the person who inputs the question and where they go from there, how curious they are to test, research and verify. Questions framed as generalities, without minutely specific examples, are bound to yield errors. I’ve had some inexplicable problems come up while working on a web site that, after a long conversation with ChatGPT and it asking me at several stages to add further conditions and facts, resulted in solutions that would have taken me days of thrashing around on the internet for answers.

In reply to @ToriNi

@ToriNi said:

Voted no. We should be able to take responsibility for anything that we post anywhere, therefore information should be verified regardless of whether it is from Al or not before posting. Factual information needs to be evidence-based regardless of the source.

Would suggest adding a disclaimer if Al has used. Al is embedded in everything nowadays but how we use it is key.

This is a good answer. Thanks!

Related discussions