No, it means conversations authored by ChatGPT are not what we want to see here, so don’t report what Chat GPT said, attributed or not. If you can’t formulate a response to a discussion using your own words, knowledge, and opinions, maybe your potential contribution to the discussion is not as valuable you think.
3 Likes
The problem is not what anyone did in the past. The problem is that what was initially fine and a legitimate topic of current event discussion became tedious and when some people decided to use the forum to do blow-by-blow accounts of exactly how they were playing with this new toy and overestimated the interest that everyone else had in watching them play.
We are not going back and evaluating anything to decide if people quoted ChatGPT “the right way.” We are asking that going forward, you not ask people to watch you play with it, no matter how much fun you think it should be for others to do so.
6 Likes
I will say that my favorite (amusing) chatGPT quote though is where Open AI was testing the language program’s plagiarism detection abilities. They showed it the text of Genesis and it said that Genesis was written by chaptGPT…Simulation hypothesis anyone?
3 Likes
This feels overbearing and ungracious. I doubt this would be an acceptable opinion for someone to express in a discussion, if the other person used google, for instance, to find an article by Plantinga on methodological naturalism.
2 Likes
Sometimes when someone says something insightful or profound, the most appropriate reply is “Well said.” With ChatGPT, it is not entirely unlike recognizing the reading of a precision detection instrument – you just have to know when to trust it and if it involves questionable facts, and if it’s important, factcheck it or ask for citations. Kind of like validating an opinion about rhyme – a privileged few will know what I’m talking about. 
New tools can lead to creativity, learning and new perceptions. Forbidding their use is shortsighted and draconian.
1 Like
Private threads and conversations are a great place to enjoy conversations that don’t fit the public model. I am involved in quite a few, and they are all rewarding. Fans of AI can continue to explore together “underground.”
3 Likes
Those who use valuable new tools shouldn’t be forbidden from using them in public.
2 Likes
Very reasonable.
1 Like
Those are very reasonable statements.
1 Like
Sure, if it is just playing. Good tools have practical use as well.
Mike, if people want to know what ChatGPT would say in reponse to a query, they can do it themselves. At some point posting “AI says this” is like posting “My Google search showed these results” or “I looked a word up in a dictionary. Cut and Paste.” Let people do their own basic internet research. It’s not a real contribution to a discussion. Don’t do it.
1 Like
Why can it not be like asking another participant, if it has a valuable, ‘insightful’ answer or an unusually diverse collection of applicable information, or an unexpected and apparently novel answer that is legitimate? It’s also not like we all have or ask the same questions.
1 Like
We have not invited ChatGPT to be a regular participant on our forum, our forum is for people. It is to discuss people’s thought’s and opinions and people’s processing of information and knowledge, backed by their personal experience and expertise, which others can evaluate and decide if they trust. Other people are not nearly as impressed by its “insights” as you are. I personally have no desire to interact with the aggregate thoughts of the internet on spiritual things, I want to interact with individual people.
3 Likes
And regular participants are forbidden from asking outside sources and citing them.
1 Like
To me all they simply saying is this.
Use the chatbot to help develop insight into stuff. Just like if you read a book, or google something and so on. Learn the data, and when a relevant discussion starts up over it , draw from your memory what you’ve learned and share it.
They don’t want people to just be the middle man for ChatGBT.
Sometimes also something is just the way the people who run it says it is.
1 Like
That is hardly accurate or even close. I demonstrated to some who saw it before it was atomized how fallible it is! It needs to be used judiciously and not just cited willy-nilly. It’s kind of ironic the resistance it’s getting though. There would be far fewer traffic fatalities if we were still using reins, and we wouldn’t need backup cameras for safety as much either.
And never quote or cite anything nor give any attribution.
Imagine the problem of bringing outside sources to correct someone who is more knowledgeable on a subject than you are.
I recall one person who initiated this ban just the other day posting a massive wall of text from some article they found fascinating. I mostly skipped it as anyone is free to do.
1 Like
I get the sense in which they want to discourage ChatGPT from being used as a way of responding to someone’s comment. What I don’t get is the ban on using it as a research tool, and then citing it as a source when appropriate.
Pretty ridiculous, that it’s prohibited like this. But there are ways around it. “The other day I learned this 
” or “Just recently I found this brilliant quote in Augustine’s Commentaries.”
1 Like
Inviting comment on a newly proposed rule, and giving a time for reflection, often goes a lot further than top down directives. Not only is leadership given time to be in agreement, users in disagreement can at least respect the rule as being deliberated.
1 Like