4 ms·

I don't think it is correct to compare my above opinion with law enforcement, it doesn't need to be "enforced", may be use it as a nice guideline for publishing

I don't think it is correct to compare my above opinion with law enforcement, it doesn't need to be "enforced", may be use it as a nice guideline for publishing stuff. If someone did write things purely with some algorithm, just annotate that it was not written by a human, so that people who don't want to read made-up/generated articles can just ignore it and move on. Doing it the reverse way does not make any sense to me, it is the same as treating all articles not having "written by human" label as generated content. -- in the "law enforcement" perspective, this is "guilty until proven innocent". What can and should be enforced is licence checks, like reusing things not in public domain should follow the license when publishing (looking at you Copilot).

mxuribe 3y ago
> ...may be use it as a nice guideline for publishing stuff. Totally agree that guidelines/guidance is ideal rather than zooming all the way to the enforcement side of the spectrum. I think i must have been thinking of "community policing" in that there is positive guidance and engagement well before actual enforcement is conducted...and your comment reminded me of this...so fully agree with you there. :-) > ...If someone did write things purely with some algorithm, just annotate that it was not written by a human, so that people who don't want to read made-up/generated articles can just ignore it and move on... I've heard others state something similar in this context for AI-authored content (or not AI-authoered content as whatever the case might be), and I'm entirely in favor of this. Its conceptually similar - at least in my mind - to "organic" or "fair trade" (or similar) that exists for products, which i think is necessary and valuable to society.