Meta note: This was originally posted as an answer in response to [this](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/389587/997587) question; the answer was deleted by SE staff. _____________ > We recently performed a set of analyses on the current approach to AI-generated content moderation. How _exactly_ did you perform it? --- > The conclusions of these analyses strongly indicate to us that AI-generated content is not being properly identified across the network, and that the potential for false-positives is very high. Show us the data please. And what does hard data have to do with "_potential_ for false-positives"? (I don't see what you could possibly have to _extrapolate_ such a conclusion based on) Are you speculating whether deleted content was really AI-generated? Are you also speculating that the only reason deleted content with AI-related flag reasons was deleted was because it was AI-generated? There are other reasons, such as not following the rules for [referencing content written by others](/help/referencing). --- > we also suspect that there have been biases for or against residents of specific countries as a potential result of the heuristics being applied to these posts. Please spell out exactly what's substantiating your suspicions. Usernames? Avatar images? Profile location fields? If a large percentage of the flags are on content written by people suspected to be from a specific set of countries, how exactly does that indicate antagonistic bias against those users? Why have you ruled out the possibility that users from those countries are just proportionally violating the current AI-generated-content policies more than people from other countries? The reality is that there are countries where lying and fraud are just part of business / culture. Why would you rule out the possibility that certain cultures care less about following the current AI-generated-content policy and won't mind violating our policies to do... whatever it is they're trying to? --- > Finally, internal evidence strongly suggests that the overapplication of suspensions for AI-generated content may be turning away a large number of legitimate contributors to the site. The purpose of the suspensions and ban policies on Stack Overflow is _rate-limiting_ bad content. If those people want to contribute "legitimately" (in accordance with site-policies), they can wait for the suspension to pass. I'm pretty sure the people who actually want to do the right thing will generally care enough and have enough grit to actually learn from their mistake and try again. The people who don't will give up. I see that as an absolute win. A one-week suspension is less than a slap on the wrist. --- > In order to help mitigate the issue, we've asked moderators to apply a very strict standard of evidence to determining whether a post is AI-authored when deciding to suspend a user. > > This standard of evidence excludes the use of moderators' best guesses based on users' writing styles and behavioral indicators, because we could not validate that these indicators are actually successfully identifying AI-generated posts when they are written. What exactly is this standard? You say what it excludes, but not what it _includes_. Considering that the question post is titled "_What is the network policy regarding AI Generated content?_", and the body asks "_Earlier this week, Stack Exchange released guidance to moderators on how to moderate AI Generated content. What does this guidance include?_", this just feels like a major facepalm moment where the instant-self-answer doesn't really answer the question. Using scanning tools may not be highly accurate, but it had at least one good property of being concrete. There _are_ good, non-biased ways to evaluate probability of using AI-generated-content that are not based on hunches: look at the writing style, phraseology, and compare it with the post owner's past writing. If there's a huge difference, that's a big red flag. Also, why do you point at problems with "bias", and then ban an approach that you haven't made any argument about being biased? What's the connection? (you later say scanners have rates of false-positives, but I don't see any connection between false-positives and bias). ... If anything, a scanner would _prevent_ bias against users based on things like their username, avatar image, and profile location field, (assuming you don't plug that info into the scanner, which I'm almost certain nobody does) --- > This standard would exclude most suspensions issued to date. Again, numbers and facts please. --- > We've also identified that current GPT detectors have an unacceptably high false positive rate for content on our network and should not be regarded as reliable indicators of GPT authorship. While these aren't the sole tools that moderators rely upon to identify AI-generated content, some of the heuristics used have been developed with their assistance. Numbers and methodology please. --- <!--We've reminded moderators that suspensions (and typically mod messages as well) are for real, verifiable malfeasance only, and should not be enacted on the basis of hunches, guesses, intuition, or unverified heuristics. Therefore, we are not confident that either GPT detectors or best-guess heuristics can be used to definitively identify suspicious content for the purposes of suspension.--> > As always, moderators who identify that a user has a problematic pattern of low-quality posts should continue to act on such users as they otherwise would. Indicators moderators currently use to determine that a post was authored with the help of AI can in some cases form a reliable set of indicators that the content quality may be poor, and moderators should feel free to review posts as such. If someone is repeatedly contributing low-quality content, we already have policies in place to help handle it, including a suspension reason that can, in those cases, be used. A friendly reminder to readers that we have a [list of ChatGPT or other AI-related discussions and policies for our sites](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/384922/997587), and that at the time of this writing, [ChatGPT is banned on SO](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/421831/11107541), and this decision is (was?) [supported by SE](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/421991/11107541). Quoting from the SO banner announcement: > We’ve just published a [new Help Center article](https://stackoverflow.com/help/gpt-policy) outlining our expectations and rationale for GPT-generated content on Stack Overflow and decided, together with moderators, to add a banner for all users pointing to it. **We've also explicitly allowed more leeway for moderators in how they handle suspensions for this matter.** Seems you've changed your tune now?