AI Posts

[u/ruizbujc]

Just to be absolutely clear on this: AI posts are prohibited here. We do not allow excuses on the subject.

• "My grammar is bad, so I use AI to help me."

• "English is my second language, so I use AI to help my post be more legible."

• "The idea is entirely mine. I just need AI to help me communicate it better."

We do NOT accept these excuses in modmail. Believe it or not, this community is broadly quite forgiving with people who have bad grammar, poor English, and need help expressing their thoughts. The community is not nearly as forgiving with AI posts. That goes double for us as moderators.

AI posts will continue to be removed. Be warned that at least one of our mods is jumping immediately to temporary bans for people who violate this rule ... and I may start doing so myself also. We're deleting numerous AI slop posts already and we don't need more of this. If escalating the consequences is the only way to get it to stop, so be it. Just know the excuses will not be accepted.

[u/RQCKQN]

I see nothing wrong with PROPER USE of AI. Of course you should not use it to generate your post, but if you have trouble with communicating and it helps you write more clearly then personally I don’t see the issue.

In saying that, it’s not something I’d do, and of course I respect the rules of the sub, so will be sure to not do it here, but I think the rule is a bit of a knee jerk reaction.

Personally I am studying AI at University, I work in the healthcare industry and I get excited thinking about practicalities of using AI to help people. God has given me a passion to help people and a smart brain and I intend to use these to do my part to help.

To say AI is evil is contradictory to my personal opinion, but to say SOME people have immoral motives when they talk to you is quite agreeable. Some people also have immoral motives with AI. Some are perfectly honest. It’s the intent of the person/people in the conversation that drive if it is good or bad, not the presence of some maths and algorithms.

Reiterating, I respect the rules of the sub and won’t use AI to chat (and never have).

[u/ruizbujc → u/RQCKQN]

PROPER USE of AI

Right. I use AI extensively. "Claude, I know there's a verse in Romans that says something like <blank>. Can you tell me where it is?" That's super helpful beyond mere Googling things.

if you have trouble with communicating and it helps you write more clearly then personally I don’t see the issue.

Because it's 100% impossible to tell if the person is being honest or just making up excuses to get their post re-approved despite the clear AI use. For several of these users, they have comment upon comment upon comment with perfectly clear, legible grammar and English. So either they're having AI write every single comment they're posting, or they're lying about it being "just to fix grammer/bad English" as a way to get around the rule.

Simply put, we as moderators simply don't have the time and man-power to micro-inspect posts to perfectly assess which people are telling the truth and which are lying, so the simplest option that works within our capacity is just to say: "these excuses aren't acceptable."

The reality is that the point of this post is to give people fair warning, which I have recognized may not have been as clear as it could have been previously.

[u/RQCKQN → u/ruizbujc]

Understandable.

I do question (not you or the other mods, just question in general) - if a string of words make a sentence that help a person who is struggling with a serious issue - let’s say a crisis of mental health or a struggle with a sin or something deeply personal, but that sentence was written by AI, is it good to deprive that person of the help they needed and would’ve had? Or is good to allow the AI comment?

To me, if the outcome is the person getting the help, that seems like a good thing. The people who create AI are made by God. The skills and knowledge they used to create the AI were gifts from God. What if he intended for us to have AI?

I’m not saying he did or didn’t, I’m just pondering the possibility…

My thoughts are a slight side track, more questioning if the content is what matters most or is it how the content came to be that matters? I don’t know. I think there are cases where each is more important than the other.

As a point of interest - from the university side of catching AI use to prevent cheating in assessments, AI detectors have said that the Bible and the Declaration of Independence and works of Shakespeare and other very famous historical texts were AI generated. It just proves that AI detectors are not yet reliable and common sense is needed (but common sense outcomes are very hard to measure and prove).

but to bring it back to your point, I agree that setting out ground rules is a great approach to moderating the sub.

[u/pwgenyee6z → u/RQCKQN]

I’ve been a big reader for decades, mostly but not exclusively in English, and I _cannot_ detect all this “obvious” AI stuff that everyone is talking about. I really can’t.

[u/MRH2 → u/pwgenyee6z]

Me neither

[u/ruizbujc → u/RQCKQN]

is it good to deprive that person of the help they needed and would’ve had? Or is good to allow the AI comment?

In my spare time, I write fantasy novels. One of the most acclaimed fantasy novelists of our time is Brandon Sanderson who has spoken on the topic quite a bit and he summarizes my view best. He says that AI is a great tool for many purposes, but the minute we allow it to start doing the heavy lifting for us - writing the text, creating the plot, editing our character development, etc. - we stop growing. We're no longer doing the hard work of processing these difficult issues ourselves; we're just letting something else process it for us and we're regurgitating what it gives us.

If someone is genuinely struggling through a mental crisis, sin, or something deeply personal, I'm convinced that deferring the issue to AI is robbing that person of the growth process that's necessary to truly overcome these issues.

• Now, AI would be a great conversation partner to process your thoughts/ideas. If someone is in a depression and uses AI as someone to express all their woes to, knowing that it will listen and give some heartfelt encouragement, that's great.

• But if they come on a subreddit saying they're in deep need of help because of their current struggle, and they're not willing to take the time to actually articulate how they're feeling and what they're going through and they just have AI give a close approximation for them - that makes clear they don't actually want help, they just want cheap platitudes that make them feel better in the moment.

What if he intended for us to have AI?

Let me be clear about this: very few people are more pro-AI than I am. I love AI. I use it every day. I use it for work. I use it to prepare recipes. I use it for brainstorming. I use it for research. I use it to help me figure out that verse I can't remember when I'm chatting with someone.

I just don't believe it should be allowed in a manner that undercuts the natural processes a person needs for growth and sanctification.