3 ms·

> "But what if they were correct answers?" is largely an irrelevant hypothetical side-issue. Why? It becomes irrelevant if an account is spamming, sure delete

> "But what if they were correct answers?" is largely an irrelevant hypothetical side-issue. Why? It becomes irrelevant if an account is spamming, sure delete everything regardless, but if I have a generated and correct answer in my otherwise pristine account? What I'm trying to say is, the fact that some people use it to spam shouldn't make it a simple ban condition. Otherwise that'd be banning emails to fight spam.

JdeBP 3y ago
"if I have a generated and correct answer in my otherwise pristine account?" is just a re-phrasing of the irrelevant hypothetical side-issue. You haven't. People aren't. This is a hypothetical that isn't the reality, and an irrelevant distraction. Go and read the comments where I just hyperlinked, then read the months of back-discussion on this in the other Meta Q&As that I mentioned, starting with the likes of https://meta.superuser.com/q/14847/38062 https://meta.superuser.com/q/14847/38062 right there on the same Meta site, and a lot more besides on many of the 180 other Stack Exchange sites, continuing with the likes of https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/35651/13638 https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/35651/13638.
- egeozcan 3y ago
  > You haven't. People aren't. This is a hypothetical that isn't the reality, and an irrelevant distraction. How can you be so sure? If one day comes a 100% reliable way to detect all AI-generated responses, how can you be sure that also the good ones won't get deleted in one major sweep? Yes, I see there are many people who despise the AI generated spam on many sites. But nothing you posted proves that all (I'd even say, "significant portion of") AI generated content is spam. I don't see anything wrong letting the AI generate an answer and edit the rough/wrong parts if necessary.
  - MauranKilom 3y ago
    > I don't see anything wrong letting the AI generate an answer and edit the rough/wrong parts if necessary. And this is not what the previous moderation policy was trying to prevent. What it was trying to prevent is answers from people skip that second step.
    - egeozcan 3y ago
      I was opposing to this part: > "But what if they were correct answers?" is largely an irrelevant hypothetical side-issue.

JdeBP 3y ago

"if I have a generated and correct answer in my otherwise pristine account?" is just a re-phrasing of the irrelevant hypothetical side-issue. You haven't. People aren't. This is a hypothetical that isn't the reality, and an irrelevant distraction. Go and read the comments where I just hyperlinked, then read the months of back-discussion on this in the other Meta Q&As that I mentioned, starting with the likes of https://meta.superuser.com/q/14847/38062 https://meta.superuser.com/q/14847/38062 right there on the same Meta site, and a lot more besides on many of the 180 other Stack Exchange sites, continuing with the likes of https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/35651/13638 https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/q/35651/13638.

egeozcan 3y ago
> You haven't. People aren't. This is a hypothetical that isn't the reality, and an irrelevant distraction. How can you be so sure? If one day comes a 100% reliable way to detect all AI-generated responses, how can you be sure that also the good ones won't get deleted in one major sweep? Yes, I see there are many people who despise the AI generated spam on many sites. But nothing you posted proves that all (I'd even say, "significant portion of") AI generated content is spam. I don't see anything wrong letting the AI generate an answer and edit the rough/wrong parts if necessary.
- MauranKilom 3y ago
  > I don't see anything wrong letting the AI generate an answer and edit the rough/wrong parts if necessary. And this is not what the previous moderation policy was trying to prevent. What it was trying to prevent is answers from people skip that second step.
  - egeozcan 3y ago
    I was opposing to this part: > "But what if they were correct answers?" is largely an irrelevant hypothetical side-issue.