Return to Answer

Here's my thoughts:

1. status-completed The proposed wording is this:

   Posting unreferenced AI-generated content repeatedly may lead to a warning from moderators, or even a suspension from the site.

   While it's reasonable to wait to issue a suspension until repeated violations have occurred and the user has been warned, I think that (ideally) users should be warned on the initial rule violation. I don't see much value in waiting until there's multiple rule violations to tell a user to stop.

   Perhaps something like this:

   Posting unreferenced AI-generated content may lead to a warning from moderators, or possibly a suspension for repeated infractions.

2. status-planned Can there be a non-English version of this policy for non-English SE sites?

3. status-planned Can (should?) there be standardized phrasing for a ban on AI content, whether cited or not? If not, individual sites have to create that themselves. While that can work, a template for that too would be nice.

4. status-completed It states this:

   Some examples of AI services commonly used to write infringing answers on $SiteName include [...]

   While this may be true on large sites, like Stack Overflow, can this say "Some examples of AI services commonly used to write infringing answers include [...]" instead? It's quite possibly smaller sites haven't seen AI answers from a variety of services.

5. status-completed The article alternates between "AI" and "artificial intelligence" a number of times. I'd probably suggest not switching constantly. Stating "AI (artificial intelligence)" and then just using "AI" might be better.

6. status-completed Google Bard is now Gemini. It may be a good idea to update the phrasing to use "Google Gemini" or perhaps "Google Gemini (formerly Google Bard)". (I'm not endorsing a specific news site here, other news sources have

Here's my thoughts:

1. status-completed The proposed wording is this:

   Posting unreferenced AI-generated content repeatedly may lead to a warning from moderators, or even a suspension from the site.

   While it's reasonable to wait to issue a suspension until repeated violations have occurred and the user has been warned, I think that (ideally) users should be warned on the initial rule violation. I don't see much value in waiting until there's multiple rule violations to tell a user to stop.

   Perhaps something like this:

   Posting unreferenced AI-generated content may lead to a warning from moderators, or possibly a suspension for repeated infractions.

2. status-planned Can there be a non-English version of this policy for non-English SE sites?

3. status-completed Can (should?) there be standardized phrasing for a ban on AI content, whether cited or not? If not, individual sites have to create that themselves. While that can work, a template for that too would be nice.

4. status-completed It states this:

   Some examples of AI services commonly used to write infringing answers on $SiteName include [...]

   While this may be true on large sites, like Stack Overflow, can this say "Some examples of AI services commonly used to write infringing answers include [...]" instead? It's quite possibly smaller sites haven't seen AI answers from a variety of services.

5. status-completed The article alternates between "AI" and "artificial intelligence" a number of times. I'd probably suggest not switching constantly. Stating "AI (artificial intelligence)" and then just using "AI" might be better.

6. status-completed Google Bard is now Gemini. It may be a good idea to update the phrasing to use "Google Gemini" or perhaps "Google Gemini (formerly Google Bard)". (I'm not endorsing a specific news site here, other news sources have

Here's my thoughts:

1. The proposed wording is this:

   Posting unreferenced AI-generated content repeatedly may lead to a warning from moderators, or even a suspension from the site.

   While it's reasonable to wait to issue a suspension until repeated violations have occurred and the user has been warned, I think that (ideally) users should be warned on the initial rule violation. I don't see much value in waiting until there's multiple rule violations to tell a user to stop.

   Perhaps something like this:

   Posting unreferenced AI-generated content may lead to a warning from moderators, or possibly a suspension for repeated infractions.

2. Can there be a non-English version of this policy for non-English SE sites?

3. status-planned Can (should?) there be standardized phrasing for a ban on AI content, whether cited or not? If not, individual sites have to create that themselves. While that can work, a template for that too would be nice.

4. It states this:

   Some examples of AI services commonly used to write infringing answers on $SiteName include [...]

   While this may be true on large sites, like Stack Overflow, can this say "Some examples of AI services commonly used to write infringing answers include [...]" instead? It's quite possibly smaller sites haven't seen AI answers from a variety of services.

5. status-completed The article alternates between "AI" and "artificial intelligence" a number of times. I'd probably suggest not switching constantly. Stating "AI (artificial intelligence)" and then just using "AI" might be better.

6. Google Bard is now Gemini. It may be a good idea to update the phrasing to use "Google Gemini" or perhaps "Google Gemini (formerly Google Bard)". (I'm not endorsing a specific news site here, other news sources have

Here's my thoughts:

1. status-completed The proposed wording is this:

   Posting unreferenced AI-generated content repeatedly may lead to a warning from moderators, or even a suspension from the site.

   While it's reasonable to wait to issue a suspension until repeated violations have occurred and the user has been warned, I think that (ideally) users should be warned on the initial rule violation. I don't see much value in waiting until there's multiple rule violations to tell a user to stop.

   Perhaps something like this:

   Posting unreferenced AI-generated content may lead to a warning from moderators, or possibly a suspension for repeated infractions.

2. status-planned Can there be a non-English version of this policy for non-English SE sites?

3. status-planned Can (should?) there be standardized phrasing for a ban on AI content, whether cited or not? If not, individual sites have to create that themselves. While that can work, a template for that too would be nice.

4. status-completed It states this:

   Some examples of AI services commonly used to write infringing answers on $SiteName include [...]

   While this may be true on large sites, like Stack Overflow, can this say "Some examples of AI services commonly used to write infringing answers include [...]" instead? It's quite possibly smaller sites haven't seen AI answers from a variety of services.

5. status-completed The article alternates between "AI" and "artificial intelligence" a number of times. I'd probably suggest not switching constantly. Stating "AI (artificial intelligence)" and then just using "AI" might be better.

6. status-completed Google Bard is now Gemini. It may be a good idea to update the phrasing to use "Google Gemini" or perhaps "Google Gemini (formerly Google Bard)". (I'm not endorsing a specific news site here, other news sources have

Here's my thoughts:

1. The proposed wording is this:

   Posting unreferenced AI-generated content repeatedly may lead to a warning from moderators, or even a suspension from the site.

   While it's reasonable to wait to issue a suspension until repeated violations have occurred and the user has been warned, I think that (ideally) users should be warned on the initial rule violation. I don't see much value in waiting until there's multiple rule violations to tell a user to stop.

   Perhaps something like this:

   Posting unreferenced AI-generated content may lead to a warning from moderators, or possibly a suspension for repeated infractions.

2. Can there be a non-English version of this policy for non-English SE sites?

3. status-planned Can (should?) there be standardized phrasing for a ban on AI content, whether cited or not? If not, individual sites have to create that themselves. While that can work, a template for that too would be nice.

4. It states this:

   Some examples of AI services commonly used to write infringing answers on $SiteName include [...]

   While this may be true on large sites, like Stack Overflow, can this say "Some examples of AI services commonly used to write infringing answers include [...]" instead? It's quite possibly smaller sites haven't seen AI answers from a variety of services.

5. status-completed The article alternates between "AI" and "artificial intelligence" a number of times. I'd probably suggest not switching constantly. Stating "AI (artificial intellegence)" and then just using "AI" might be better.

Here's my thoughts:

1. The proposed wording is this:

   Posting unreferenced AI-generated content repeatedly may lead to a warning from moderators, or even a suspension from the site.

   While it's reasonable to wait to issue a suspension until repeated violations have occurred and the user has been warned, I think that (ideally) users should be warned on the initial rule violation. I don't see much value in waiting until there's multiple rule violations to tell a user to stop.

   Perhaps something like this:

   Posting unreferenced AI-generated content may lead to a warning from moderators, or possibly a suspension for repeated infractions.

2. Can there be a non-English version of this policy for non-English SE sites?

3. status-planned Can (should?) there be standardized phrasing for a ban on AI content, whether cited or not? If not, individual sites have to create that themselves. While that can work, a template for that too would be nice.

4. It states this:

   Some examples of AI services commonly used to write infringing answers on $SiteName include [...]

   While this may be true on large sites, like Stack Overflow, can this say "Some examples of AI services commonly used to write infringing answers include [...]" instead? It's quite possibly smaller sites haven't seen AI answers from a variety of services.

5. status-completed The article alternates between "AI" and "artificial intelligence" a number of times. I'd probably suggest not switching constantly. Stating "AI (artificial intelligence)" and then just using "AI" might be better.

6. Google Bard is now Gemini. It may be a good idea to update the phrasing to use "Google Gemini" or perhaps "Google Gemini (formerly Google Bard)". (I'm not endorsing a specific news site here, other news sources have