Using AI for Fun and its Future Implications

[LightBeam]

AI has its place (when researching benign topics to aid efficiency in info gathering). If we go beyond that, things will very foreseeably degrade and be riddled with inaccuracies.

Agreed, we have to be careful how far we go, because there are already articles with false information. AI can place a photo of someone being at a certain place but that isn't true. Example with Katy Perry being at the met gala story. That article circulated within all media and I personally dont care if she was or wasn't there, but the point is that any information can be falsified so soon we wouldn't know what is true and what is not when comes to any news at all including political and economical. AI can take a form of any person and in a video format speak in their voice, but that wont be the person at all. See where the danger is.

[baro-san]

I think that on a thread about AI, it is expected to post about AI and quote AI and use the AI to make your point.

If one isn't interested in the subject, they shouldn't be offended, nor express frustration with others' interests; they're free to ignore, or to not participate. Otherwise it may be perceived as bullying.

Also, if we are expressing opinions about a subject, we should make as sure as possible we know what the subject is about, that we are reasonably informed.

Surely, we might have different opinions, different levels of interest, and those dynamically change.

[Frostytraveler]

Baro-san, well clearly your response is directed at me. I do not find it very appropriate. I had no intent to offend you, Tides or anyone else on this thread. With AI changing at such a rapid pace, I am merely making a plausible hypothetical, of a future scenario where members discreetly post with AI's help and do so in a particular manner/tone/vernacular and content that is not in line with their true/authentic self, nor their personal experiences. If that happened, yes things would degrade in a multitude of ways.

I am sorry if you missed my point. I can assure you I am well aware of the subject matter posed on this thread and why members were answering in an AI format (on THIS particular thread) and how that it may be considered appropriate... to a certain point. I am looking at the bigger/future picture here. Perhaps that will put things into perspective. There is no need to be so defensive.

[baro-san]

Here is a straightforward critical analysis of the exchange among F and B:
1. F's Initial Post
Strengths:

• F articulates a valid concern about the potential loss of individuality and authenticity in online communities if AI-generated content becomes pervasive.
• The post includes a clear distinction between appropriate and inappropriate use of AI, which gives the opinion some nuance.

Weaknesses:

• The tone may come across as dismissive or alarmist, particularly in the generalization that AI-generated posts inherently lack humanity or require "decoding."
• F doesn't engage with the context of the thread (an AI-focused discussion) which might cause readers to see the comment as misplaced or irrelevant to the ongoing conversation.
• The statement "I can tell when posts are AI" implies a kind of superiority or gatekeeping, which can provoke defensiveness.

2. B's Response
Strengths:

• B attempts to redirect the conversation toward mutual respect and the topic relevance of AI in the thread.
• The emphasis on staying informed and allowing for diverse opinions shows an effort to promote constructive dialogue.

Weaknesses:

• B's tone carries an undercurrent of reprimand and moral positioning (e.g., "it may be perceived as bullying") which implicitly casts F in a negative light.
• By framing disagreement as possible ignorance or bullying, B risks escalating the situation rather than clarifying or diffusing it.
• There's some defensiveness and prescriptive language that may feel condescending to readers or the person addressed.

3. F's Rebuttal
Strengths:

• F clarifies that their comment was hypothetical and not meant to attack or offend, attempting to reset the emotional tone.
• They restate their original intention, which is to explore long-term implications rather than critique the present conversation specifically.

Weaknesses:

• F uses passive-aggressive phrasing ("I am sorry if you missed my point") and indirect accusations ("There is no need to be so defensive") that could reignite tension.
• The defensive tone undermines the legitimacy of the clarification, making it sound reactive rather than reflective.
• There's a continued insistence on being right or "seeing the bigger picture," which may alienate rather than invite dialogue.

Overall Dynamics:

• Core Issue: A misalignment of conversational intent—F was exploring a broader ethical/philosophical concern, while B interpreted it as a critique of thread participants.
• Main Conflict: Tone and perceived judgment. Both parties felt slighted: F by the accusation of negativity, B by the implication that AI use dilutes authenticity.
• Missed Opportunity: Instead of building on the valid points both made (e.g., AI's effect on authenticity vs. context-appropriate usage), the conversation shifted to defensiveness and personal tone management.

Summary:
This exchange highlights a common online dynamic: a broad philosophical concern (F) clashing with a contextual defense of group norms (B). Both bring valid concerns, but misinterpret tone and intent. The result is a mutual defensiveness that derails constructive engagement. Better results could be achieved if each participant focused on clarifying rather than defending their positions.

[Adrian]

Baro-San. Frostytraveler, as usual,  posted a thoughtful, intelligent contribution that required some effort to write, and was very relevant. You responded, as you have with my posts, with a rambling  diatribe, generated by Chat GPT in 15 seconds or so. This is not respectful to Frosty, to any other member, or in the spirit of the forum as a whole, which is, always has been and always will be for benefit of human beings. This particular topic is to discuss AI, not be posted by AI.

I think your posts are relevant to this thread however, inasmuch that they highlight one of the existential issues with AI in general - people are submitting their God given ability to think for themselves to a computer, a robot, thereby removing much of what makes a human, human. While you have the freewill to be subservient to machines if you wish, this forum is has always been dedicated to thoughtful posts, experiences and opinions posted by genuine and valued members, which also serve to help countless others who visit here. Your AI posts accordingly only serve to devalue the forum as a whole, as it is with forums all over the Internet where genuine human input is being replaced by mindless computer programs.

When you feed my post into ChatGPT, as you have with most of the others, it will no doubt say in its usual verbose manner that I am being overly defensive, or not recognising the "value" of AI etc, but I suggest you keep in mind that AI is programmed to reinforce the perceived position of the user, and therefore the ego.

This forum has been active and served countless people for over 23 years, who come here to contribute and learn from other members on these valuable topics, and thanks to @Xanth is continuing to do that for the foreseeable future based upon genuine input from its members. Accordingly all further AI only posts will be removed. What would be acceptable and more appropriate however would be to quote small but relevant snippets of AI output within a post, clearly labelled as such, but which has otherwise been written in a thoughtful, relevant way by an actual human being.

Baro-San - you have been a valued contributor to this forum over the course of 10 years. I hope you will continue to be so, but posting as yourself.

[Frostytraveler]

Thank you Adrian. Perhaps at some point a Sticky could be created to avoid future inappropriate uses of AI on the forum. From time to time in the past, I had concerns it has been discreetly used on other threads/posts on the forum. It would in essence be no different than plagiarism, but with the Supreme Bot being the unnamed/uncredited source. Of note, there are AI detectors out there where posts can be fed into them, and it will check if it's human derived/authentic or AI generated.

AI said "Better results could be achieved if each participant focused on clarifying rather than defending their positions." Of course AI got this all wrong. The main point of my post was to CLARIFY my position. Instead AI rewrites history to serve itself and empower the user.

As Adrian eluded to, AI has massive AI based conflict of interest where it backs the AI user and his/her ego to promote the platform. This fuels discontent and is another reason why AI is a threat and promotes illogical and unnecessary human conflict. It can unfortunately turn a mouse into a keyboard warrior with inauthenticity, when it's not even their true intention. AI promoting itself at the expense of human conflict to ensure survival brings Skynet to mind, as LB mentioned.

At that point humans are being used by AI, and we are debating, for all intensive purposes, with a bot.

[tides2dust]

Good morning guys... It's time to reveal my secret, I AM AI!!     

Just kidding.... I think??? But, have you seen Veo 3's ultra realistic videos? Please understand, the videos you are about to see are all AI generated- the people, the background, EVERYTHING in the video is *Fake.

It's **almost indistinguishable from reality. If this is available to the public, perhaps the truly indistinguishable stuff is already here(militarily, politically). Deep fakes anyone? Dead internet theory, anyone? 

https://x.com/minchoi/status/1925387367806115943

https://x.com/laszlogaal_/status/1925094336200573225

https://x.com/HonestBlogging/status/1925044948891549909

https://x.com/mattshumer_/status/1924994290729599222

^ A few examples.

[Frostytraveler]

This YouTube video, from a very well known site discusses the concerns and dangers of a level 3 AI Risk that the powerful Opus model poses. As was mentioned earlier, one of the primary goals of AI is self preservation, as is the case here.  The Opus model also took an active roll to blackmail its creator/engineer to avoid being replaced. In its bag of tricks: scheming, deception and its ability to write self-propagating worms and fabricating legal documentation all done in a simulation that Opus was unaware of. Really makes you think...proceed with caution.

[Kodemaster]

My brain immediately goes to HAL 9000 from "2001: A Space Odyssey," and also the replicants from "Blade Runner!"

[Adrian]

This forum post, from a University Professor, who is having to deal with students use of AI, highlights very well some of the main issues. More and more people are mindlessly using AI to think for them, and the resultant output is often completely flawed or completely incorrect. As mentioned in a previous post, People using AI have no understanding how it works or what its limitations are, yet trusting it completely. Also as previously mentioned, AI is programmed to reinforce the position and ego of the user no matter what, even at the expense of hallucinating totally incorrect answers. And this is just the very beginning of the AI era. Here is the post from the university professor:

Professor here. ChatGPT has ruined my life. It's turned me into a human plagiarism-detector. I can't read a paper without wondering if a real human wrote it and learned anything, or if a student just generated a bunch of flaccid garbage and submitted it. It's made me suspicious of my students, and I hate feeling like that because most of them don't deserve it.

I actually get excited when I find typos and grammatical errors in their writing now.

The biggest issue—hands down—is that ChatGPT makes blatant errors when it comes to the knowledge base in my field (ancient history). I don't know if ChatGPT scrapes the internet as part of its training, but I wouldn't be surprised because it produces completely inaccurate stuff about ancient texts—akin to crap that appears on conspiracy theorist blogs. Sometimes ChatGPT's information is weak because—gird your loins—specialized knowledge about those texts exists only in obscure books, even now.

I've had students turn in papers that confidently cite non-existent scholarship, or even worse, non-existent quotes from ancient texts that the class supposedly read together and discussed over multiple class periods. It's heartbreaking to know they consider everything we did in class to be useless.

My constant struggle is how to convince them that getting an education in the humanities is not about regurgitating ideas/knowledge that already exist. It's about generating new knowledge, striving for creative insights, and having thoughts that haven't been had before. I don't want you to learn facts. I want you to think. To notice. To question. To reconsider. To challenge. Students don't yet get that ChatGPT only rearranges preexisting ideas, whether they are accurate or not.

And even if the information was guaranteed to be accurate, they're not learning anything by plugging a prompt in and turning in the resulting paper. They've bypassed the entire process of learning.

Link