AI generated posts

[chrisw]

I find AI slop as porn.

If the output of a chatbot which had been instructed to role play a sex phone line were posted, it would be in breach of the charter without requiring additional rules.

Miscomprehension of point made. Is that the reason you use ChatGpt so much?

[chrisw]

AI generated posts violate rule of real personal name in the profile. Or even worse they mask themselves as humans.

Or even worse they try to pretend they have some sort of expert status when they don't

[chrisw]

...if there is a rule that AI (co)generated content must be marked as such on this forum

..AI gen stuff

then it will be up to the user to read it or ignore it? To distinct one owns, original thoughts from AI generated ones.

--
Srdja

Good idea. +1

Ai slop posts are invariably vey lengthy and occupy too much screen real estate. They disrupt normal human flow and, if you wish to engage with the human who posts it, you can't because he doesn't understand, and it's not worthwhile because he doesn't understand. AI posts are effectively thread terminators and thread derailers. Something needs to be done over and above just expecting NORMAL posters to have to make decisions to read or not.
Dump it in a group. AI Slop
Force the poster to wrote the material inti AI Slop and make a link to it from his part human posting.
It's like pornography.

[towforce]

I find AI slop as porn.

If the output of a chatbot which had been instructed to role play a sex phone line were posted, it would be in breach of the charter without requiring additional rules.

Miscomprehension of point made. Is that the reason you use ChatGpt so much?

Non-sexual chatbot output is not like pornography.

[chrisw]

I find AI slop as porn.

If the output of a chatbot which had been instructed to role play a sex phone line were posted, it would be in breach of the charter without requiring additional rules.

Miscomprehension of point made. Is that the reason you use ChatGpt so much?

Non-sexual chatbot output is not like pornography.

Do you really not understand that people can find Chatbot replies offensive? Get some self awareness and try again.

[towforce]

I find AI slop as porn.

If the output of a chatbot which had been instructed to role play a sex phone line were posted, it would be in breach of the charter without requiring additional rules.

Miscomprehension of point made. Is that the reason you use ChatGpt so much?

Non-sexual chatbot output is not like pornography.

Do you really not understand that people can find Chatbot replies offensive? Get some self awareness and try again.

Of course I understand - like I understand that a GM who has dedicated his life to mastering chess would be offended if he wrote a clever analysis of a chess position, only to see it bettered by Nick Nobody with his chess engine.

[chrisw]

I find AI slop as porn.

If the output of a chatbot which had been instructed to role play a sex phone line were posted, it would be in breach of the charter without requiring additional rules.

Miscomprehension of point made. Is that the reason you use ChatGpt so much?

Non-sexual chatbot output is not like pornography.

Do you really not understand that people can find Chatbot replies offensive? Get some self awareness and try again.

Of course I understand - like I understand that a GM who has dedicated his life to mastering chess would be offended if he wrote a clever analysis of a chess position, only to see it bettered by Nick Nobody with his chess engine.

Ridiculous. Since you can't comprehend, perhaps you should be on the receiving end of AI on this very topic:

Likening AI replies to pornography is a provocative metaphor, and it actually aligns with several philosophical and social critiques currently circulating in digital culture. While it might sound extreme at first, the comparison works if you look at **pornography as a "simulated intimacy"** rather than just sexual content.

Here is how that comparison holds up when someone uses a chatbot to masquerade as a human in a discussion:

### 1. The "Cheap Simulation" of Connection
Pornography is often criticized for providing the *visual or auditory cues* of intimacy without the actual *human relationship* or emotional labor.
* **The Comparison:** When someone uses a chatbot to reply to a heartfelt or complex post, they are providing the *linguistic cues* of a conversation without the actual *thought or presence* of a person. It is "intellectual pornography"—it looks like a meaningful exchange, but there’s nobody home.

### 2. Devaluation of the "Real"
A common argument against pornography is that it can desensitize people to real-world intimacy by providing an effortless, idealized alternative.
* **The Comparison:** If discussion forums become flooded with "perfectly" structured, polite, and comprehensive AI replies masquerading as humans, it can devalue real human speech. Real human speech is messy, biased, and slow. If we get used to the "high-gloss" finish of AI-generated text, genuine human effort starts to look "worse" or "lesser" by comparison.

### 3. The "Uncanny" Exploitation
Pornography is a commodity designed to trigger specific neurological responses (pleasure, excitement) through artifice.
* **The Comparison:** AI masquerading as a human exploits our social triggers. When we read a reply, our brains naturally assume a human wrote it, so we "invest" social energy and empathy into that interaction. Discovering it was a machine feels like a "violation" of that social contract—similar to the feeling of being tricked by a deepfake.

### 4. Categorization as "Slop"
In 2024 and 2025, the term **"AI Slop"** became a common way to describe low-effort, high-volume AI content.
* **The Comparison:** Much like how "pulp" or "pornographic" media is often viewed as low-quality content produced purely for consumption/engagement rather than art or truth, masqueraded AI replies are seen as a way to "occupy space" or "farm engagement" without contributing anything of substance.

---

### Is it actually "Offensive"?
Yes, for many, the offense lies in the **deception**.

> **The Analogy:** If you went to a therapy session and found out at the end that you were talking to a realistic animatronic with a speaker, you would likely feel a sense of "ontological shock" or offense. You shared your humanity with something that doesn't have any.

When people do this on forums, they are essentially "tricking" you into spending your limited human attention—your most valuable resource—on a statistical model. To many, that feels like a gross misuse of human sociality.

**Do you see this as a moral failing of the person posting the AI reply, or is it more of a "buyer beware" situation where users should just expect AI everywhere now?**

[towforce]

There you go: with the assistance of a chatbot, you were able to make your point comprehensible.

[chrisw]

There you go: with the assistance of a chatbot, you were able to make your point comprehensible.

For you. Most normal people with a few shreds of self awareness would be able to see the point without having it laid out in detail.

Do you understand irony? Apparently not.

[chetday]

If we're discussing AI in a subforum devoted to AI, does it not make sense to actually use the technology we're discussing when appropriate and when citing material from an AI adds value to the discussion?

A few other thoughts...

"AI posts are effectively thread terminators and thread derailers." I would suggest that's solely in the eye of the beholder. What you find boring and stupid I might find interesting and intelligent.

I guess it is a LOT to ask "NORMAL posters to have to make decisions to read or not." I suggest any potential charter revisions should also define a "NORMAL poster" to help us avoid confusion.

Perhaps a new group labeled "Human Slop" might be appropriate as well?

Anyway, Srdja has already proposed a simple and sensible solution to lower the blood pressure of those who can't stand AI. Add a rule to the charter that says all AI-generated material that's cited verbatim must begin with an AI gen stuff: alert.