First thing, this team definitely needs a lot of oversight. I wouldn't put this as a subteam of anything due to disc already being overdue for a restructure, but keep it in staff chat where all staff can see it. I wouldn't limit things to OS+ since this stuff generally isn't as sensitive as disc cases and unconfirmed suspicions already get ported to public O5 record, but that's not super important.

In terms of Juinor Staff being a part of this team, I see no reason to allow that. As per this page Junior Staff wouldn't be allowed to vote or witness any of the things this team is responsible for doing. That said, I think it should be allowed for Junior Staff to open new reports for the team same as how any staff member can make a disc thread, and any staff member who's not part of the team can comment on threads if they've go something relevant to add. I just don't see any reason for Junior Staff to be recruited to this team when they aren't allowed to participate in most of the things the team does.

For the team structure, I think a Vice Captain and a Captain would be good, but similar to disc I'd like all admins to be the admin contact. With the power to delete pages and ban users this team has significantly more power than most others. That's not a bad thing, this team needs to be able to do those things. But with great power comes great responsibility so there would need to be strong evidence before anything is done. To be frank, I do not trust all of staff to do their due diligence before voting yes on things like this. I was there when people were trying to be the first person to witness a deletion. We're all human, we all make mistakes, therefore I believe we should be having at least three admins signing off before any page is removed or anybody gets banned. The Captain and Vice Captain would be in control of most other parts of the team such as recruiting OS to join and when to close a case for lack of evidence.

In the investigation and lead up to a ban/deletion, I'd structure it similarly to disc with discussions and votes in the evidence thread. Once clear evidence is gathered members of the team would voice their support or dissent for action, and if no admins were present for that it would be forwarded to admins for a final decision.

The nice thing about this AI detection team is that while AI generated content is certainly a problem, it's never going to be a problem that requires swift action. Maximizing the amount of eyes on things before action is taken against anyone can only benefit us and users.

The biggest issue with this team is short of confession there's no way to prove something was made by AI. There's plenty of structures and weird habits the AI likes to use, but in isolation those things can commonly be found in the average bad coldpost or low rated series one page. In the absence of a confession, we should gather as much evidence as possible before making a decision. I personally have seen the usual edit history evidence be proven wrong multiple times, I've seen people make mistakes in their writing that look like AI hallucinations. Evidence must be overwhelmingly clear before votes are made.

That said, in the absence of clear evidence WE CANNOT FORCE A CONFESSION. We are not cops, we are staff running a creative writing website. We have no business coercing or threatening users to get them to confess to using AI. If a user says they did not use AI we cannot threaten them with further disciplinary action in the event they don't confess but are still found guilty. Would that make our jobs easier? Sure it would, but it would also greatly increase the amount of false positives and we need to do everything we can to avoid deleting pages that were written by a human.

But to give opinions to your questions —

1. Should this team stand as its own entity, or become a subteam of an existing group (MAST, Crit, Disc, etc.)

I think it needs to be part of a team that has general site experience; at the same time, we don't want teams to feel like they're lacking input because some members are busy with AI responsibilities, which I only see growing as the tech does, so I could also see a dedicated team being developed as time goes on.

If I had to choose a team, to me crit fits quite well — they're on the idea/drafts boards frequently, as well as giving feedback to failing articles which may help identify those articles which are AI-generated.

2. How should this team be structured? Is a simple Captain/Vice Captain structure sufficient?

I think the simple Captain/Vice Captain team structure should work well, although I would be open to other structures that may work better with this new team. All of this is very experimental and dynamic, just like AI, so I think it's important we're all open-minded about structuring and where the team comes from.

3. How should this team formalize reporting of AI-generated content, and what expectations should be held regarding investigation and compiling evidence?

Just like any team, they should have space on Discord and, if used frequently enough, IRC (I've been using Discord, not IRC so I don't know if this is a viable idea).

Investigation, in my opinion, could include using several different AI-generation content identifiers, but these can be imperfect and certainly shouldn't be the only way to identify AI. Instead, members of the team should look if there are sandboxes, if there are any drafts for the final work on them, and what their writing is like outside of this one article — if they have made forum/draft posts to start with. There's mostly a pattern with those who use AI who have not used the sandbox, or have used it with minimal edits to an otherwise 'finished' piece which has its AI indicators.

It is harder to prove, but AI articles in particular are just something you can feel are incorrect because of their ill-fitting adjectives, filling out sections wrong in some way, and their use of redundancy as well as a lack of consistent professionalism and SCP writing style as AI doesn't quite understand how this site works.

4. How should final reports be made? Should they be made directly to Disc, or simply an Admin so the user may be revoked/banned?

I believe we have an 05 board for users who have been identified as having used AI, so I think this has been addressed, but I also think the revocations can be dealt with by the Admin or whoever is the Captain, after recording the issue and evidence on the board correctly. I understand trying to get Disc's opinion to make sure all bases are covered, but Disc is very busy, so I would be concerned the user could languish whilst waiting for us to make our minds up when it's clear (to me!) a first offence should be membership removal, not just a warning.

It gets more complicated in many ways once we're looking at users who return — and return to the same behaviour.

5. How should finished cases be logged?

As mentioned above, we thankfully now have a board for that, so they should be logged (alongside evidence and such) on there, unless it changes to a Disc reason such as the user reacting poorly to the AI accusations, or otherwise just becomes a user who needs to be addressed outside of the AI content issue.

1. Should this team stand as its own entity, or become a subteam of an existing group (MAST, Crit, Disc, etc.)

Making the ai team a disc sub team is what makes the most sense, after all posting AI generated content on the wiki is a violation of the site's rules, and thus the team's objectives are to enforce the site rules in this specific field.

2. How should this team be structured? Is a simple Captain/Vice Captain structure sufficient?

I don't feel like there is a reason to overcomplicate this, a simple captain/Vice captain structure is easily comprehensible and works well most of the time. I don't see why we would need to reinvent the wheel for this hypothetical team.

3. How should this team formalize reporting of AI generated content, and what expectations should be held regarding investigation and compiling evidence?

As to ensure transparency, the ai team should have a team channel in the staff server, not unlike that which disc currently possesses, reports should the be talked in that channel in their own threads.

Evidence ought to be comprehensive, we don't want false positives, is this also why I am against, the use of ZeroGPT, as at best it is unreliable, and at worst it is as good as useless.

The evidence should include looking at their sandboxes, if any exist, compare the article under investigation with those sandboxes and others of the same author, and of course looking for hallmarks of computer-generated text. For these later it would perhaps be wise to make a sandbox with common elements, but we would also need to make clear that it shouldn't be taken as gospel.

4. How should final reports be made? Should they be made directly to Disc, or simply an Admin so the user may be revoked/banned?

Disc.

5. How should finished cases be logged?

They should be logged in the recently created *AI Records* forum thread

1. Should this team stand as its own entity, or become a subteam of an existing group (MAST, Crit, Disc, etc.)

I think Disc would be the most appropriate subteam, given AI submissions result in a revoke

2. How should this team be structured? Is a simple Captain/Vice Captain structure sufficient?

Yeah

3. How should this team formalize reporting of AI generated content, and what expectations should be held regarding investigation and compiling evidence?

Echoing Zoob as well, they have a lot of experience with locating AI tells in articles

4. How should final reports be made? Should they be made directly to Disc, or simply an Admin so the user may be revoked/banned?

Disc

5. How should finished cases be logged?

O5. Now that there is a separate AI forum category, this has been addressed

Additionally, I would like to echo Prismal's comments re: transparency

EDIT: re: concerns regarding "this team being moved out of general staffchat", as said in the original post. I think a potential course of action could be making a staff-only channel in Staffcord. That way the AI subteam's business will be visible to everyone who it concerns and internal transparency will be maintained. This channel, if implemented, could fit into the "team business (private)" category

1. Should this team stand as its own entity, or become a subteam of an existing group (MAST, Crit, Disc, etc.)

Seeing as this team has the power to get people kicked from the wiki for use of AI, this would have to be a Disc subteam.

2. How should this team be structured? Is a simple Captain/Vice Captain structure sufficient?

Yes.

3. How should this team formalize reporting of AI generated content, and what expectations should be held regarding investigation and compiling evidence?

Echoing Zoobeeny.

4. How should final reports be made? Should they be made directly to Disc, or simply an Admin so the user may be revoked/banned?

Reports should be made to Disc.

5. How should finished cases be logged?

O5, just like everything else.

Should this team stand as its own entity, or become a subteam of an existing group (MAST, Crit, Disc, etc.)

Subteam of disc or licensing works best. I don't think there's enough here to justify the creation of a new entity specifically for this team, especially given the overlap with existing teams.

How should this team be structured? Is a simple Captain/Vice Captain structure sufficient?

Cap/VC structure works, though I feel like this team would work best with a more horizontal heirarchy, similar to how discord crit functions.

How should this team formalize reporting of AI generated content, and what expectations should be held regarding investigation and compiling evidence?

Echoing Zoo's comment given their expertise on the topic

How should final reports be made? Should they be made directly to Disc, or simply an Admin so the user may be revoked/banned?

Reports should be made to both Disc and Admins

How should finished cases be logged?

O5 is most likely the best bet, similar to AHT or maturity bans in my opinion

Should this team stand as its own entity, or become a subteam of an existing group (MAST, Crit, Disc, etc.)

Being a subteam of Disc makes the most sense to me. While there are elements of AI-detection that touch on the areas of the other groups, the two focuses of this group are "determining AI usage" and "determining if punishment is applicable". The entire latter half is solely a Disc action and would benefit from being part of Disc itself instead of having to port every single case to Disc for adjudication.

How should this team be structured? Is a simple Captain/Vice Captain structure sufficient?

Captain/Vice Captain structure would work. I don't see any reason any other structure would be necessary.

How should this team formalize reporting of AI generated content, and what expectations should be held regarding investigation and compiling evidence?

Investigation should be comprehensive so as to avoid false positives, including analysis of the article/work in question, comparisons to previous examples of works (both previous articles and sandboxes, if applicable), and revision histories. Specific examples of AI-generation in the article itself should be highlighted to the rest of the team. Oddly enough, despite what others have pointed out above, I don't personally use ZeroGPT all that often due to the unreliability of AI-detection software. I mainly go by what I see myself.

How should final reports be made? Should they be made directly to Disc, or simply an Admin so the user may be revoked/banned?

If the team is formed as a subteam of Disc, then reports can just be internal to Disc. If it's an adjunct or separate team, then final reports should be ported directly over to an Admin so as to not require Disc to have to further deliberate on the issue as decided upon by the Anti-AI team.

How should finished cases be logged?

I believe both in-progress and finished cases should be ported over to a new forum category on O5. Unless we want to do a more "ban-wave" approach so as to minimize the particular tells the team uses to determine AI usage.

Edit: Found the answer.

1. Should this team stand as its own entity, or become a subteam of an existing group (MAST, Crit, Disc, etc.)

I'd say Disc subteam, sine it's the easiest to structure, but otherwise it's fine enough to act mostly standalone - All Disc members can weigh in on this subteam's proceeding, but whether members of this subteam can decide on more general non-AI cases is TBD.

3. How should this team formalize reporting of AI generated content, and what expectations should be held regarding investigation and compiling evidence?

Beyond reasonable doubt I guess.

4. How should final reports be made? Should they be made directly to Disc, or simply an Admin so the user may be revoked/banned?

Glad this team is coming to fruition, I hate the uprise of AI on the wiki, and it’s sad that it’s had to come to this, but it’s unfortunately necessary :p

1. To me it seems apparent that this should be an arm of the Disc Team. Ultimately this AI detection team's goal is to sus out AI usage for the purpose of taking punitive action against people, at least to my understanding. I don't think under our current structure and charter that it would make sense to do otherwise. You could have it stand alone but then you'd have appeals and punishment for certain disciplinary action go through a new team, which seems like it might get confusing for users and in terms of purview in some scenarios. IMO it's just all around easier to make this part of the Disc Team

2. Seems to make the most sense to me. I will mention that the Disciplinary Team is still without either Captain or Vice-Captain, which I strongly think should be fixed anyway, but especially if another team/subteam gets added to the mix.

3. This I don't really know. I will say that clearly we've already informally sorted this out since we do dole out action for AI usage, based on people's investigation. I suggest looking to that and attempting to formalize that. I can't be more detailed than that since I've not really followed AI detection and disciplinary action.

4. I'd say same way Disc or AHT does it as needed, ping an admin, tell them what you need them to do and have them do it.

5. One thing that I think should be discussed here is how transparent the team should be about the evidence collected/methodology used. In most other situations I'd advocate for maximum transparency insofar as how the investigation was conducted and what evidence was used to determine AI usage, however, if this is done then we risk having people remove the hallmarks of the AI generation that we use to detect the text. All the same, you have to leave it open to allowing people to appeal, so I think there's a balance to be considered there, but I'd avoid tipping people off to the AI detection methodology

6.

Now to answer the questions.

Should this team stand as its own entity, or become a subteam of an existing group (MAST, Crit, Disc, etc.)

How should this team be structured? Is a simple Captain/Vice Captain structure sufficient?

I think captain vice captain and then members works fine for me.

Personally, I think it should be under disc or licensing.

How should this team formalize reporting of AI generated content, and what expectations should be held regarding investigation and compiling evidence?

I think Zoob has a pretty good template for what we do already. Run it through 0GPT, mention the hallmarks of AI. Personally if this becomes a team it should either have a server, or a channel in the server for the team it becomes part of. And possibly in the staff server so it’s not just done in general.

How should final reports be made? Should they be made directly to Disc, or simply an Admin so the user may be revoked/banned?

It should be made to disc. And if it’s a non staff member, it should be made to a member of the subteam.

How should finished cases be logged?

I admit I’m not sure on this one yet.

Overall I think this AI subteam is a very good idea as it’s very prominent on the wiki.

I will say that I think having it as its own entity makes sense, although putting it under either MAST or Disc or Lisc would also make sense logically. However, I do want it to be okay for JS to join it, which I believe some of those teams currently restrict. Thank you for taking the lead on this, Ori!

As we've seen in recent moths, AI generated content posted to the wiki continues to be an issue. We currently have no formalized process for identifying AI generated content, nor do we have specific personnel tasked with handling this. As AI models become more sophisticated, we have an increasing need for vigilance on our end. So-

Proposal: Form a team dedicated to identifying AI generated content.

This team's duty would be simple. It would be a clear group of individuals who are tasked with identifying AI generated content using common, key tells (that we would establish in policy). This team would do the investigation, compiled evidence, and submit to Disc/Admins so the user in question can be revoked/banned in accordance to existing policy regarding AI generated materials.

Benefits: Having a clear group of individuals tasked with this will make reporting AI generated materials easier for both staff and users- they now know specifically who to contact. This will also free up staff spaces from current reporting practices that can clog chat, these reports are now handled in a separate space by the team in question. Reports no longer need to be a disc issue, and revokes/bans can be logged in a single master thread on O5 rather than individual disc/nondisc threads. Again, freeing staff spaces from clutter.

Downsides: Right now the innate downside is the fact that there will never be 100% solid evidence that a user's content is AI generated, at least in the case of text. As a result internal policy/guidelines for content identification runs the risk of false positives. Likewise I can see potential concerns for this team being moved out of general staffchat into an existing/their own team server- the investigations become less visible to staff as a result (even if said spaces would remain public to staffers.)

What I need: One, I need bodies. I need people interested in joining this hypothetical team who are willing to participate in this team's potential workload (i.e. reporting, investigation, discussion). Two, I need assistance forming policy related to this team and its operations.

Policy questions: I'll admit I've never been a policy guy, so please offer further policy questions that I miss.

1. Should this team stand as its own entity, or become a subteam of an existing group (MAST, Crit, Disc, etc.)

2. How should this team be structured? Is a simple Captain/Vice Captain structure sufficient?

3. How should this team formalize reporting of AI generated content, and what expectations should be held regarding investigation and compiling evidence?

4. How should final reports be made? Should they be made directly to Disc, or simply an Admin so the user may be revoked/banned?

5. How should finished cases be logged?

These are the questions I'm currently able to pose. Again, I'm not a policy wizard so while I do have thoughts on all the above I would like to see discussion from interested staffers first. I am also willing to serve as this hypothetical team's captain/section head.

This discussion will be open for one week. There is also an ongoing thread in the public channel of the official staff discord server.