Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

Return to Answer

Honestly, this can be a bit less graphic. Let's be nice, and not pretend that banning AI answers will automatically get users killed.
Source Link
Tinkeringbell Mod
Tinkeringbell Mod
  • 41.2k
  • 13
  • 70
  • 185

Banning AI will lead to a Blade Runner future

Which can be avoided by:

  1. AI answers should be allowed alongside, but not revealed unless the reader explicitly wishes to see them.
  2. Questions should specify their consequentiality, to allow selection and review of AI responses for higher criticality questions.

"Bad Actor" Reasoning:

  • If there are no reliable methods to detect AI-generated content, banning will do little to stop it, and will only prompt human operators to modify their AI to mimic humans.
  • Segregating AI and human content opens a legal avenue for such operators to participate.
  • This creates competition for better answers between AI entities.
  • It's better than nothing. It allows for a second-chance search when a question remains unanswered.
  • Allows for Stack Exchange to monitor AI content, to gauge when it reaches and surpasses the quality of human-generated content.

Response Quality Reasoning:

  • Keep Enemies Closer. It is undeniable that AI quality will eventually reach and exceed that of humans. It's better to keep it close and monitor it than to simply ban it (partially repeating the above point).
  • Account for Criticality. Not everyone is asking questions about life support machines or nuclear reactor programming at work. Some users inquire about ping command parameters, and while ping may flood a server given incorrect parameters, it's less severe than nuclear reactor programming. Specifying consequentiality of question creates necessary countering force from the question itself.
  • Wasabi and Truffle are examples of products that often don't contain the elements they claim in their names. Most users do not care where the answer comes from as long as it solves their problem. And with AI there may be no unanswered questions. But if AI answers are banned, those users would go to a Stack Exchange clone run by an evil AI and get lured to an abandoned factory to have their organs harvestedinto trouble.

Responsible segregation of content would create a harmonised society between humans and machines. Banning it would create a divide and lead to a Blade Runner society where your coworker may turn out to be an illegal replicant because they are banned.

Banning AI will lead to a Blade Runner future

Which can be avoided by:

  1. AI answers should be allowed alongside, but not revealed unless the reader explicitly wishes to see them.
  2. Questions should specify their consequentiality, to allow selection and review of AI responses for higher criticality questions.

"Bad Actor" Reasoning:

  • If there are no reliable methods to detect AI-generated content, banning will do little to stop it, and will only prompt human operators to modify their AI to mimic humans.
  • Segregating AI and human content opens a legal avenue for such operators to participate.
  • This creates competition for better answers between AI entities.
  • It's better than nothing. It allows for a second-chance search when a question remains unanswered.
  • Allows for Stack Exchange to monitor AI content, to gauge when it reaches and surpasses the quality of human-generated content.

Response Quality Reasoning:

  • Keep Enemies Closer. It is undeniable that AI quality will eventually reach and exceed that of humans. It's better to keep it close and monitor it than to simply ban it (partially repeating the above point).
  • Account for Criticality. Not everyone is asking questions about life support machines or nuclear reactor programming at work. Some users inquire about ping command parameters, and while ping may flood a server given incorrect parameters, it's less severe than nuclear reactor programming. Specifying consequentiality of question creates necessary countering force from the question itself.
  • Wasabi and Truffle are examples of products that often don't contain the elements they claim in their names. Most users do not care where the answer comes from as long as it solves their problem. And with AI there may be no unanswered questions. But if AI answers are banned, those users would go to a Stack Exchange clone run by an evil AI and get lured to an abandoned factory to have their organs harvested.

Responsible segregation of content would create a harmonised society between humans and machines. Banning it would create a divide and lead to a Blade Runner society where your coworker may turn out to be an illegal replicant because they are banned.

Banning AI will lead to a Blade Runner future

Which can be avoided by:

  1. AI answers should be allowed alongside, but not revealed unless the reader explicitly wishes to see them.
  2. Questions should specify their consequentiality, to allow selection and review of AI responses for higher criticality questions.

"Bad Actor" Reasoning:

  • If there are no reliable methods to detect AI-generated content, banning will do little to stop it, and will only prompt human operators to modify their AI to mimic humans.
  • Segregating AI and human content opens a legal avenue for such operators to participate.
  • This creates competition for better answers between AI entities.
  • It's better than nothing. It allows for a second-chance search when a question remains unanswered.
  • Allows for Stack Exchange to monitor AI content, to gauge when it reaches and surpasses the quality of human-generated content.

Response Quality Reasoning:

  • Keep Enemies Closer. It is undeniable that AI quality will eventually reach and exceed that of humans. It's better to keep it close and monitor it than to simply ban it (partially repeating the above point).
  • Account for Criticality. Not everyone is asking questions about life support machines or nuclear reactor programming at work. Some users inquire about ping command parameters, and while ping may flood a server given incorrect parameters, it's less severe than nuclear reactor programming. Specifying consequentiality of question creates necessary countering force from the question itself.
  • Wasabi and Truffle are examples of products that often don't contain the elements they claim in their names. Most users do not care where the answer comes from as long as it solves their problem. And with AI there may be no unanswered questions. But if AI answers are banned, those users would go to a Stack Exchange clone run by an evil AI and get into trouble.

Responsible segregation of content would create a harmonised society between humans and machines. Banning it would create a divide and lead to a Blade Runner society where your coworker may turn out to be an illegal replicant because they are banned.

Source Link
Roman
Roman
  • 61
  • 1

Banning AI will lead to a Blade Runner future

Which can be avoided by:

  1. AI answers should be allowed alongside, but not revealed unless the reader explicitly wishes to see them.
  2. Questions should specify their consequentiality, to allow selection and review of AI responses for higher criticality questions.

"Bad Actor" Reasoning:

  • If there are no reliable methods to detect AI-generated content, banning will do little to stop it, and will only prompt human operators to modify their AI to mimic humans.
  • Segregating AI and human content opens a legal avenue for such operators to participate.
  • This creates competition for better answers between AI entities.
  • It's better than nothing. It allows for a second-chance search when a question remains unanswered.
  • Allows for Stack Exchange to monitor AI content, to gauge when it reaches and surpasses the quality of human-generated content.

Response Quality Reasoning:

  • Keep Enemies Closer. It is undeniable that AI quality will eventually reach and exceed that of humans. It's better to keep it close and monitor it than to simply ban it (partially repeating the above point).
  • Account for Criticality. Not everyone is asking questions about life support machines or nuclear reactor programming at work. Some users inquire about ping command parameters, and while ping may flood a server given incorrect parameters, it's less severe than nuclear reactor programming. Specifying consequentiality of question creates necessary countering force from the question itself.
  • Wasabi and Truffle are examples of products that often don't contain the elements they claim in their names. Most users do not care where the answer comes from as long as it solves their problem. And with AI there may be no unanswered questions. But if AI answers are banned, those users would go to a Stack Exchange clone run by an evil AI and get lured to an abandoned factory to have their organs harvested.

Responsible segregation of content would create a harmonised society between humans and machines. Banning it would create a divide and lead to a Blade Runner society where your coworker may turn out to be an illegal replicant because they are banned.