EstrellaYoshte

I've thought a bit about if just AI-supported content being allowed is worth the hassle of not having a clear line, but there are writing things that you can only do with an AI. I'm thinking of the CYOA type articles we get once in a while that as I understand it could through AI-generated text engage in chat with the reader as directed by the author.

AI generated text, even when supplementary, is at best a crutch and at worst a replacement for a co-author. This is a collaborative writing community, and allowing tools that remove collaboration seems antithetical to that idea.

AI-generated text may be used in a supplementary fashion as long as the significant majority of the content is written by a human.

I don't believe that any AI-generated text should be used on the site. Full stop. If you want to write an AI, write the AI.

Where I slightly disagree with Flops is on Botnik. I get the argument that Botnik isn't actually generating the text, and I would be fine with it if there weren't other AIs around. While it was fun and had its place, I think that - now - in the space of other text generating AI, I would also like a ban on it. I don't want us to have to split the hairs on using a particularly well made predictive keyboard and a truly generative AI.

I'm still for grandfathering in the old text because that was heavily human curated from what I understand.

I think if ai text ends up allowed I'll leave it to the discretion of the crit team if tricking someone into critting ai text deserves harsher sanction.

Articles primarily composed of AI-generated text are not allowed.

The use of tools which may use AI-adjacent scripting in its operation (such as Grammarly) to assist with grammar, critique, translation and idea generation are also allowed.

I support this.

AI-generated text may be used in a supplementary fashion as long as the significant majority of the content is written by a human.

I oppose this, specifically as it involves GPT and derivatives of its API.

Most of my reasoning is based on my opposition to AI Art (explained here). The crux of my argument is as follows. I believe AI generation of content has adverse and complicating effects on many of the processes we have developed on the Wiki. My reasoning can be split into two further points.

1. Whereas AI can augment the writing and critique processes, this, in effect, is detrimental to the writer. Using AI in this way costs the writer the valuable experience and skills development that come from working to improve their writing via their own merits/the feedback that critters offer. A writer can't expand or sharpen their abilities through AI; and anyhow, that isn't what it's used for.
2. AI-generated content and ideas can become stand-ins for a co-author. This prevents (or is more likely to prevent) writers from seeking to collaborate in earnest. Sure, the drive to collaborate can never be completely overridden. But when you have access to advanced AI content-generation tools that save you the time, effort, and creativity, it can diminish.

It's worth speaking to the caveats involved here.

This post was not written by ChatGPT.

AI-generated text may be used in a supplementary fashion as long as the significant majority of the content is written by a human.

While I am fine with all other aspects of the proposal I can't throw my support behind this. I 100% agree with what CD said above. As critstaff I am here to critique the stories and ideas that people write from themselves, not something that can be generated from a prompt online.

Articles primarily composed of AI-generated text are not allowed. AI-generated text may be used in a supplementary fashion as long as the significant majority of the content is written by a human.

Botnik-J is sufficiently machine-generated that this would not hypothetically allow for the nuance, so perhaps something less quantitative.

An additional shorthand guideline is more reasonable - "Articles must be primarily brainstormed/directed/planned by yourself. If your contribution was removed from the final work with no real effect, it's not an article made by you and is not allowed on the wiki."

As a note: I am personally against any AI-generated text being used (Grammarly idc about), except for articles in which that’s the main point (of which we already have two). However, I think directly citing which parts of an article were not written by its author is a decent enough compromise.

http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15644770/discussion-ai-content-on-the-wiki

04 mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-15827346/discussion-ai-generated-text-on-the-wiki

Alright last time we discussed this we decided to delay for the big AI content discussion which then became a bit of a garbage fire. This is going to be focused on AI text generation as image generation involves nuances that are best left to licensing.

I propose to add the following text to site rules

Articles primarily composed of AI-generated text are not allowed. AI-generated text may be used in a supplementary fashion as long as the significant majority of the content is written by a human. The use of tools which may use AI-adjacent scripting in its operation (such as Grammarly) to assist with grammar, critique, translation and idea generation are also allowed.
Staff may have to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a specific article should be considered AI-generated. Some existing works which have used AI-generated text may be allowed as well, at staff discretion.