Timeline for Are moderators now allowed to delete ChatGPT-generated posts?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2023 at 16:30 | comment | added | NotTheDr01ds | @JonathanZ I've asked about this as well, and the general Mod guidance has been that (a) this type of statement still focuses on the content, (b) flags are private, while certain chat rooms are public and do have rules about mentioning users, and (c) a single flag can sometimes suffice to cover multiple answers in this way, saving you and the Mod time. If in doubt, though, consult a Mod on the site where you are flagging. If you don't get a response, I'd say go ahead - At worst they'll then let you know via flag comment or other means. :-) | |
| Aug 30, 2023 at 15:52 | comment | added | JonathanZ | "Even a note that there are multiple answers from that user that appear to be AI-generated can be helpful" So this is permitted? I've seen people (on math.se) say that you should only refer to the content of the particular answer, and mentioning patterns in the user's answers is a no-no. The people saying this weren't moderators, but they did include users of long experience and high reputation. And I never saw any official statements with either "it's okay" or "it's not okay" to clear things up. | |
| Aug 30, 2023 at 15:36 | comment | added | NotTheDr01ds | @ggorlen Another tip, if you are flagging a lot of them - Consider using a separate app (or sidebar) for writing up the flag, then copying/pasting into the flag. That allows you to keep the browser tab open on the answer itself while you type up the details. I personally use Vivaldi browser's Note sidebar for this, but there are many other options, of course. | |
| Aug 30, 2023 at 15:24 | comment | added | NotTheDr01ds | Personally, mine look something like: Suspected AI: Possibly the 12 most recent from this user (1) a reason, (2) another reason, (3) another reason -- I've become pretty adept at identifying the reasons why something is likely AI, so I often have multiple data points to cite. Multiple mods have told me that they appreciate the format of my flags. And yes, I number and bold each so that they are easy for the Mods to read as quickly as possible. | |
| Aug 30, 2023 at 15:21 | comment | added | NotTheDr01ds | @ggorlen As to "what" to put it in the flag, any reasons why you believe it is AI. If it just "looks" AI to you, that's fair - Let the Mod know. If you see technical errors, things that you believe a real person wouldn't say (but an LLM might), etc. then add that to the flag. Even a note that there are multiple answers from that user that appear to be AI-generated can be helpful. | |
| Aug 30, 2023 at 15:19 | comment | added | NotTheDr01ds | @ggorlen That's a good point that it hasn't been "well advertised". The best discussion around that topic I can find is here. Laurel makes the point in an answer that, "These details are very important because they can considerably shorten the amount of time a moderator spends on [investigation]." Just keep in mind that while you and I need to spend additional time flagging the answers with details, if we don't do it, the Mods have to spend that additional time, and they are dealing with hundreds (currently thousands) of flags. | |
| Aug 30, 2023 at 15:08 | comment | added | ggorlen | This is good to know, but it's the first I've heard that the flag text for a GPT answer matters. I've been just saying "Looks ChatGPT" or "ChatGPT spammer" if they've posted more than a few in a row. It's a bit time consuming to explain why in detail, given the volume of flags I'm raising, especially in quick succession for the same user. Are there guidelines on how to best raise a GPT flag in a way that's best for the mods, other than not to comment on the post? | |
| Aug 30, 2023 at 7:29 | history | answered | NotTheDr01ds | CC BY-SA 4.0 |