Because it's a forum for people to talk with other people.

"If you can't explain your idea to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
- (some dead guy)

Take a certain thread that one lone OP keeps posting on on the front page that has been told multiple times makes no sense yet only replies with insults. Stuff like that, is why.

Sorry I do not understand your explanation. I am sure you know "one lone OP keeps posting on the front page", but I don't know what you are talking about. Is this something like a signature, but instead of being at the bottom of a post, it is at the top? How does that make AI a bad thing?

I talk a lot about things I don't understand. Why would anyone come here if it were not a desire to have a better understanding? This is not just about what I have to say, but what others have to say. Do you want me to go away because I am not smart enough to be here. :gasp: That really hurts.

Because it's a forum for people to talk with other people. — Outlander

I don't understand how clearer I can make that sentence.

The site owner doesn't seem to like AI taking the place of genuine, organic human discussion and discourse, despite its many imperfections and tendency to lead to less than productive exchanges.

Frankly I enjoy your presence here, as well as your posts and discussions. But that's nothing to do with the question you've asked.

AI

AI LLMs are not to be used to write posts either in full or in part (unless there is some obvious reason to do so, e.g. an LLM discussion thread where use is explicitly declared). Those suspected of breaking this rule will receive a warning and potentially a ban.

AI LLMs may be used to proofread pre-written posts, but if this results in you being suspected of using them to write posts, that is a risk you run. We recommend that you do not use them at all. — TPF Site Guidlines

We can use AI to clarify/explore ideas to ourselves, it's just recommended that we don't use them at all.

There is a huge problem of trust with LLMs. If you ask a complicated question you don't know the answer to, you don't know whether the answer is complete bullshit. I asked for a summary of some Chapters of Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian and it gave me wrong garbage. It should of said upfront that it couldn't because it doesn't have access to the text.

LLM's are just more fuel for eroding trust in information in our post truth era.

I use ChatGPT to clean up my posts all the time, but I don't have it write the entire post for me.

There is a huge problem of trust with LLMs. If you ask a complicated question you don't know the answer to, you don't know whether the answer is complete bullshit. I asked for a summary of some Chapters of Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian and it gave me absolute garbage. It should of said upfront that it couldn't because it doesn't have access to the text. — Nils Loc

I don't trust it when it comes to fiction, but I haven't seen it make a philosophical mistake in a long time.

I don't use GPS while driving or LLMs for my TPF postings either. Call me a luddite ... I'm secure in my own cognitive abilities.

To me, that is an insane decision that makes no sense at all. — Athena

Why do you think it's insane? It seems eminently reasonable to me. In fact I can't imagine a real philosophy forum that did not incorporate such a rule. It seems that all of them have.

Because it's a forum for people to talk with other people. — Outlander

Yep. :up: :up:

I don't use GPS while driving or LLMs for my TPF postings either. Call me a luddite ... I'm secure in my own cognitive abilities. — 180 Proof

Would you say that those cognitive abilities have benefited from exposure to the intellectual stimulation and challenge provided by the ideas others offer on forums like this one?
I dont know that I can so easily distinguish the benefits of conversation with participants here and the conversations I have with an A.I. which I then incorporate into my contributions on this site. The concepts it exposes me to are not invented by a machine. The machine culls and parses knowledge and opinion produced by an enormous community of actual human beings. Of course, my conversation with such a community has its limitations. The machine can lie and hallucinate in its parsings, so I need to know to request sources and quotes I can verify.

And since the machine doesn’t create its own point of view , I have to direct the conversation at every step, which keeps the challenge to my thinking at a more superficial level than is the case with a direct interchange with people. Still, I find the access it gives me to preliminary background information indispensable to the process of organizing my arguments, just as submitting a draft for peer review does. It doesnt make me lazy, or cause me to doubt my own cognitive abilities, any more than refreshing one’s acquaintance with a topic through background reading or conversation does. It sharpens those skills. Which is why I sympathize with on this issue. Most contributors to this site will use A.I. in spite of the rule, since it’s easy to cover one’s tracks. The rule is useful for reminding everyone that A.I. does lie, and more importantly, is not a substitute for presenting and arguing one’s own thesis.

What is the reasoning for this prejudice? — Athena

AI offers the best explanations
You want the best explanation for why AI can't be used here

Ergo, ask AI why you can't use AI here.

Would you say that those cognitive abilities have benefited from exposure to the intellectual stimulation and challenge provided by the ideas others offer on forums like this one? — Joshs

No. My "cognitive abilities" (seem to) benefit mostly from exercising them unaided (as much as possible) here and elsewhere.

Obviously, you've never seen Battlestar Gallactica.

A guy at another site caught Gemini inn a lie.

This time I decided to test its ability to create jokes.

I first made sure it understood the basic requirements of a Western joke - the 'turn' and what have you - and then gave it an example of the kind of thing I was after. "Two cannibals eating a clown. One turns to the other and says, "Does this taste funny to you?"

"Now it's your turn," I said, "but I want something that you have created from scratch."

It 'thought' for a moment. "Why was the scarecrow given an award? Because it was outstanding in its field," came back the response.

"That's not new!" I told it. "That's as old as the hills."

The AI returned with an embarrassed, "I'm sorry - I'll try to do better next time." — A guy

That seems pretty serious to me. Lying??

It's a rule that is unenforceable in practice.

"If you can't explain your idea to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
- (some dead guy) — Outlander

I am old and have mental issues. Like many people my age, I often struggle to think of the word I want to say. I also use a walker. For me, telling me I can not use AI is like telling me I can not use my walker.

I interpreted your quote as saying people who struggle with memory and communication issues are not desired members of the forum. Desired members have excellent communication skills and know enough about the subject to explain it to a child. I can't even explain things to adults. I seriously doubt I meet the high standards you all want to keep.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AI offers the best explanations
You want the best explanation for why AI can't be used here

Ergo, ask AI why you can't use AI here. — Hanover

Okay, here is what I got when I asked "AI why do forum owners reject you?"

AI, forum owners, including moderators and administrators, may reject users or content generated by AI for various reasons, including the following:
Concerns about content quality and authenticity: AI-generated content can sometimes lack the nuance, creativity, and originality of human contributions. Forum owners may want to ensure that the content shared in their community reflects genuine human perspectives and insights, and may be concerned about a decline in quality if AI-generated content becomes too prevalent.

.

There are more concerns. Frankly, I don't care about them because AI improves my ability to spread information. If I were a photographer and could use the best camera, would that make sense? When we get better tools we can do better and I need the better tool because my brain is not that good.

I do appreciate your thoughts, and no one's objective is to make anyone's life more difficult, but the rule has an important purpose in assuring we are communicating with one another and not with bots.

So, the rule does stand. That being said, it does appear you've responded to me without AI coherently and passionately, which means you will do just fine without sending us bot created messages.

It's a rule that is unenforceable in practice. — Banno

Respect for the rule of law assures compliance.

↪Athena It's a rule that is unenforceable in practice. — Banno

Now that is an ethical issue isn't it? We keep our liberty by agreeing to obey the laws. That does not mean approving of the law. When we disagree with a law, it is our duty to explain why we are opposed to the law and do our best to get the law changed.

Effectively, Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and the preservation of democracy. Finding fault with the democracy does not mean he thought something else was better. I think he wanted the people to do democracy better.

Besides I don't own the forum and maybe if I did, I would think it necessary to forbid the use of AI.

:clap:

I don't know where you got that you need AI to present your case.

↪Athena I do appreciate your thoughts, and no one's objective is to make anyone's life more difficult, but the rule has an important purpose in assuring we are communicating with one another and not with bots.

So, the rule does stand. That being said, it does appear you've responded to me without AI coherently and passionately, which means you will do just fine without sending us bot created messages. — Hanover

Surely my pathetic efforts to behave like an intelligent person should prove my posts are made by a human. I do not see how quoting AI is worse than quoting any other source of information; it is just faster, easier, and more efficient.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to think I have the authority of an expert. Wikipedia and AI are accumulate information that is corrected when it needs to be corrected. So it is useful to use as a source of information to support our arguments.

And thanks for the confidence in my abilities. However, if you were having my experience, I don't think you would be so confident. I would not be surprised if a year from now, I couldn't even log in. If my life has any value, it is to increase understanding. I have a heart condition and I chose to do nothing about it, unless a medicine or pace pacemaker will improve the quality of my life. I do not want to lose my mind before I lose my life. This is not about just me; it is about getting old and senile. From my point of view, allowing people to use walkers and AI is a kindness because such aids extend the time a person can function and participate in meaningful activities.

Respect for the rule of law assures compliance. — Hanover

Oh, indeed, you and I would never make use of AI...

I don't know where you got that you need AI to present your case. — Hanover

I am making a case for everyone who needs aids to achieve what they want to achieve. If this was not about everyone, I would not have started a thread. When I studied gerontology at the U of O, the experts were asking if old people withdrew from society because that was their choice, or are the old people pushed out. I can answer that question with my personal experience.

It is a combination of both, not getting the job because of being too old, or not being able to do the job for physical reasons. The people I speak with agree that technology is closing us out, but some us are learning to use technology to our benefit. Senile people don't need to stop driving; they just need to learn how to use their cell phones and the GPS function.

I was never the smartest kid in the room, and if it weren't for Grammarly, my post would be impossible for me to understand. I relate to the people who have a hard time keeping up, and I hope attitudes regarding AI change. But at the same time, I suspect AI may be a serious threat. We fought a war to throw off the control of a king, and now some people want to turn everything over to AI. :scream: that is alarming.

Oh, oh I wonder how Descartes would handle this issue with his understanding of animals and humans being machines. What is the meaning of humanity if a machine rules over us?

I don't know where you got that you need AI to present your case. — Hanover

I was responding to being told to ask AI. Now I am confused. You didn't mean for me to ask AI why I can't use AI?

You said--

AI offers the best explanations
You want the best explanation for why AI can't be used here

Ergo, ask AI why you can't use AI here. — Hanover

There’s not a blanket ban on your using AI but we’re not allowed to use it to write posts for us. You can use it to refine your arguments, ideas and prose but it’s important that what you write is in your own voice.

There’s not a blanket ban on your using AI but we’re not allowed to use it to write posts for us. You can use it to refine your arguments, ideas and prose but it’s important that what you write is in your own voice. — Wayfarer

What I have done elsewhere is use AI to support what I have said. I want to make it clear, what I say is not a personal opinion but is factual. Occasionally, I ran into information that was very exciting to me, and I wanted to use it to open a discussion. That was against the rule in the other forum as well. Accepting I was not supposed to do that, played into my decision to stop participating in the forum.

I am confused by the ban having exceptions. How is anyone supposed to know the limits? And it just dawned on me, using Grammarly may be against the rules. I am screwed if that is so because I can't spell.

I interpreted your quote as saying people who struggle with memory and communication issues are not desired members of the forum. Desired members have excellent communication skills and know enough about the subject to explain it to a child. I can't even explain things to adults. I seriously doubt I meet the high standards you all want to keep. — Athena

Here's an analogous case for you.

This is an English-language forum (almost but not quite entirely), but more than a few members are not native speakers of English. That means sometimes their grammar is a little off, or their diction is a bit surprising, and so on.

No one would ever suggest that if you are not a native speaker of English then you are not welcome here, and in fact most people are willing to overlook minor deviations from standard English, so long as the post is still intelligible. (Most people would be shocked to read a verbatim transcript of everyday speech. We're very good at ignoring deviation, and need only bring that skill to bear.)

More than that, I think most members here are keen to look past the surface of someone's writing and find the ideas being expressed, so if that surface is a bit rough, it's not really a big deal. The forum has rules about presentation that are intended (a) to keep us from looking like some lame social media site where ppl dont bother to spel n punctuate n stuff, and (b) so that posters make an effort not to place unnecessary interpretive burdens on their audience.

In short, mostly people here care what you think and cheerfully make allowances for less than sterling expression of those thoughts. Anyway, that's what I choose to believe this evening.

Which brings me to the main point about AI (or Wikipedia or SEP or IEP or what have you). The only important thing in anyone's post is their ideas, and that means their ideas. If all I post is information I get from elsewhere on the internet, I'm just a go-between; anyone could look up the same stuff I look up. so there's nothing about my post that's uniquely and irreplaceably me.

What people want from you here is what you think. If it's expressed at too great a length, with unnecessary detail, and much of that in parenthetical asides, as here, most readers are pretty forgiving, if annoyed. And if you use some bit of software to improve the presentation of your ideas a little, that's within bounds, so far as I can tell, because the important thing is that it is your ideas getting expressed.

Oh, indeed, you and I would never make use of AI... — Banno

The old tu quoque fallacy.

To be clear though, you can use AI, just not:

"AI LLMs are not to be used to write posts either in full or in part (unless there is some obvious reason to do so, e.g. an LLM discussion thread where use is explicitly declared). Those suspected of breaking this rule will receive a warning and potentially a ban.

AI LLMs may be used to proofread pre-written posts, but if this results in you being suspected of using them to write posts, that is a risk you run. We recommend that you do not use them at all."

You can interact with AI all you want, you just can't have it write your posts. I use AI all the time. Bounce ideas off it. Use its search engine feature. But whatever I post is in my own words and understanding, and I don't use it as source information, but locate whatever it says on some independent site.

Where it says you can't use it to write posts, it means literally as @Athena was suggesting. You can't just plug in info and have it spit you out a response. You can learn whatever you learn however you learn, and once learned, you can tell us what you learned.

This is no different than having your friend do your homework for you. If he explains you the topic, you read the book, you understand it, you do the assignment, you're fine. If he does it for you, then you cheated, and no one likes a cheater.

But you can't just say feel free to have your friend do your homework because it's impossible for your teacher to know, which is kinda what you did say.

AI is biased. It wil try and substantiate and support ideas rather than criticise them. It takes quite a bit of work to get AI to do what you want, and even then it can make glaring mistaking (struggles with verbatim quotes).

It is a damn useful tool but not at all intelligent. If you are just copy and pasting AI text as your own post then it is almost certainly not expressing what you want to say perfectly. If you are using it as a fact checker it will require more effort than needed to just write and express your ideas yourself (as it makes errors without exact instructions).

I don't use GPS while driving or LLMs for my TPF postings either. Call me a luddite ... I'm secure in my own cognitive abilities — 180 Proof

:up: :up:

This is no different than having your friend do your homework for you. If he explains you the topic, you read the book, you understand it, you do the assignment, you're fine. If he does it for you, then you cheated, and no one likes a cheater. — Hanover

:up: :up:

AI is result-oriented. Intellectual development, and particularly philosophical intellectual development, is process-oriented. If you just want to post the "right" answer, you are doing things wrong. It's no fun that way either. And apart from keeping things philosophical, we want to keep them human here. Within 10 years, the vast majority of the internet will be AI generated---such is the logic of competitiveness and consumerism. We won't be.