As well as the points already raised by others, I'd like to make the point that we should be encouraging people to prompt LLMs themselves rather than just accepting the outputs of others. As a social norm, this will make society more robust to misinformation and deception, as it will result in fewer people trusting outputs without knowing how the LLM was actually prompted.
This probably doesn't really matter in this context, but I think it's a general best practice worth reinforcing whenever possible.
[flagged]
Posting an AI summary is about as useful as posting Google search results. We can all do it, we don't need anyone to do it for us.
As well as the points already raised by others, I'd like to make the point that we should be encouraging people to prompt LLMs themselves rather than just accepting the outputs of others. As a social norm, this will make society more robust to misinformation and deception, as it will result in fewer people trusting outputs without knowing how the LLM was actually prompted.
This probably doesn't really matter in this context, but I think it's a general best practice worth reinforcing whenever possible.
If someone want to ask an LLM about something, good for them, but there's no need to paste its content over the internet, disclosed or not.
I feel the intent of these rules are to forbid undisclosed aigen comments.
If you ban disclosed usage of AIgen, you will get covert usage of AIgen
You can actually ban both.
> you will get covert usage of AIgen
We get that regardless of how we ban disclosed usage.
Such behaviour is extremely obvious. Anyone capable of hiding it is also capable of just… not using AIgen.