It's been pointed out to me by several people now that giving moderators access to the content of what people paste is bad for privacy. I initially disagreed (and still hold some thoughts of disagreement), but SPArcheon has convinced me. Rather than invalidate the answer posts that have given this feature request valid criticism by editing the feature request into something different, I'll just leave it here as is, and take some time to think of an alternative without the privacy problems, which I'll put in a new post later. Let the following be somewhat of a "cautionary tale":
Quoting Slate from their answer to "Ban ChatGPT network-wide":
if any site experiences a volume of GPT posts that are cumbersome to manage, or a site needs any other support managing an influx of unwanted content, we are always happy to help apply the tools we have at our disposal.
It's intuitive that people would start trying to evade detection by editing their answers that they pasted from ChatGPT (several people have pointed this out in the answers to GPT on the platform: Data, actions, and outcomes, including Gilles, me, Kevin, tripleee, NotTheDr01ds, markalex, and more- probably).
If you're happy to help as you've stated, please give moderators the following information for answer posts:
The draft count
Time taken to write each revision would also be nice.
All content pasted into the post body input for each revision
It doesn't matter if the content has been edited after pasting (that's the whole point of this feature request), or completely removed (I bet that's hard to implement, and it doesn't really matter anyway)
If we're concerned about user-safety with accidental pastes of sensitive information (I see this as an edge case, and personally think mods can be trusted with this information if they can be trusted to redact things from post revisions), then we can significantly narrow down the exposed surface area by making it so at least one user needs to flag it with a custom reason saying "chatgpt" (or similar) in it. If a moderator wants to investigate something on their own, they'd need to ask another user such as another moderator to raise such a flag (and presumably give a reason for asking) before being privy to that info—basically, requiring two users and at least one being a moderator agreeing that there's a good reason to want to see that info.
If that's still considered too "privacy invasive" (I don't think it is), then I think we can at least settle for showing the length in characters of each draft.
Some sites could really use these tools. Stack Overflow clearly could use it, I've heard Ask Ubuntu is getting numerous ChatGPT answers, and I've noticed one user going on a crazy joyride on Software Quality Assurance & Testing.