Return to Answer

Honestly, this just shows the lack of trust/communication between the company, moderators, and the community (but again thanks for publishing this). The policy focuses on the reliance on of GPT detectors, even when mods have said they did not use them. You didn't even talk to moderators before forming your ill-informed opinion.

Also,

Remember that users have honed their instincts as to what a GPT contribution ‘sounds’ like based on input and signals from GPT detectors that are now known to be bad.

This is just patently false. What gave you this impression? Certainly not talking to the community. We have been trying to reach out to you guys for a long time, and we were repeatedly ignored. It took a moderation strike for you to finally listen to us, which says something about how much the company values its volunteers.

It's pretty ironic; an announcement about strict requirements of evidence (analogous to proving Treason in the U.S.) that wasn't made with the same rigor. You need to hold yourself to the same standards that you impose on others.

Honestly, this just shows the lack of trust/communication between the company and moderators and the community (but again thanks for publishing this). The policy focuses on the reliance on GPT detectors, even when mods have said they did not use them. You didn't even talk to moderators before forming your ill-informed opinion.

Also,

Remember that users have honed their instincts as to what a GPT contribution ‘sounds’ like based on input and signals from GPT detectors that are now known to be bad.

This is just patently false. What gave you this impression? Certainly not talking to the community. We have been trying to reach out to you guys for a long time, and we were repeatedly ignored. It took a moderation strike for you to finally listen to us, which says something about how much the company values its volunteers.

It's pretty ironic; an announcement about strict requirements of evidence (analogous to proving Treason in the U.S.) that wasn't made with the same rigor. You need to hold yourself to the same standards that you impose on others.

Honestly, this just shows the lack of trust/communication between the company, moderators, and the community. The policy focuses on the reliance on of GPT detectors, even when mods have said they did not use them. You didn't even talk to moderators before forming your ill-informed opinion.

Also,

Remember that users have honed their instincts as to what a GPT contribution ‘sounds’ like based on input and signals from GPT detectors that are now known to be bad.

This is just patently false. What gave you this impression? Certainly not talking to the community. We have been trying to reach out to you guys for a long time, and we were repeatedly ignored. It took a moderation strike for you to finally listen to us, which says something about how much the company values its volunteers.

It's pretty ironic; an announcement about strict standards of evidence that wasn't made with the same rigor. You need to hold yourself to the same standards that you impose on others.

Honestly, this just shows the lack of trust/communication between the company, moderators, and the community (but again thanks for publishing this). The policy focuses on the reliance on of GPT detectors, even when mods have said they did not use them. You didn't even talk to moderators before forming your ill-informed opinion.

Also,

Remember that users have honed their instincts as to what a GPT contribution ‘sounds’ like based on input and signals from GPT detectors that are now known to be bad.

This is just patently false. What gave you this impression? Certainly not talking to the community. We have been trying to reach out to you guys for a long time, and we were repeatedly ignored. It took a moderation strike for you to finally listen to us, which says something about how much the company values its volunteers.

It's pretty ironic; an announcement about strict requirements of evidence (analogous to proving Treason in the U.S.) that wasn't made with the same rigor. You need to hold yourself to the same standards that you impose on others.

Honestly, this just shows the lack of trust/communication between the company, moderators, and the community. The policy focuses on the reliance on of GPT detectors, even when mods have said they did not even use them. You didn't even talk to moderators before forming your ill-informed opinion.

Also,

Remember that users have honed their instincts as to what a GPT contribution ‘sounds’ like based on input and signals from GPT detectors that are now known to be bad.

This is just patently false. What gave you this impression? Certainly not talking to the community.

It's pretty ironic; an announcement about strict standards of evidence that wasn't made with the same rigor. You need to hold yourself to the same standards that you impose on others.

Honestly, this just shows the lack of trust/communication between the company, moderators, and the community. The policy focuses on the reliance on of GPT detectors, even when mods have said they did not use them. You didn't even talk to moderators before forming your ill-informed opinion.

Also,

Remember that users have honed their instincts as to what a GPT contribution ‘sounds’ like based on input and signals from GPT detectors that are now known to be bad.

This is just patently false. What gave you this impression? Certainly not talking to the community. We have been trying to reach out to you guys for a long time, and we were repeatedly ignored. It took a moderation strike for you to finally listen to us, which says something about how much the company values its volunteers.

It's pretty ironic; an announcement about strict standards of evidence that wasn't made with the same rigor. You need to hold yourself to the same standards that you impose on others.