[Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

Summary:

The SCP Wiki, a collaborative website for fans of the SCP Foundation, is debating a ban on AI-generated text due to concerns that it may dilute the quality and creativity of user-generated content. The ban includes text generated by OpenAI's GPT-3 language model and similar artificial intelligence tools.

page 1 of 212next »

[Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

psychicprogrammer 21 Apr 2023 14:26

Previous thread: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15517521/discussion-ai-generated-text-on-the-wiki

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.

Last edited on 21 Apr 2023 14:27 by psychicprogrammer Show more

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

(account deleted) 21 Apr 2023 14:34

Full support, assuming this won't apply to Ai-generated articles that have already been posted.

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

cdithink 21 Apr 2023 14:46

One stipulation to add: any AI-generated text must be credited as being such. I would also prefer that critstaff not be asked to crit AI-generated passages.

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.

---

— CD

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

aismallard 21 Apr 2023 15:03

This is also a good point. We should engage the critique team to come up with verbiage specific to LLM text and critique; the last thing we need is an even higher workload as people dump shoddy generated material onto critiquers.

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

aismallard 21 Apr 2023 15:01

Rather than having the main qualifier be how much of the document is generated, I think the presentation of the text is also relevant. For instance in The Great Hippo's 001, there is botnik-generated text, but they are presented in blockquotes and in-universe they are presented as coming from a machine. Because it is clear what the origin of that text is, I feel like that's different than a "regular" SCP that presents as all human but where the middle section was composed by an LLM.

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

Guaire 21 Apr 2023 15:13

I fully support this proposal with the addenda cdithink suggested earlier in the discussion.

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

EstrellaYoshte 21 Apr 2023 15:20

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."

Last edited on 21 Apr 2023 15:23 by EstrellaYoshte Show more

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

AstersQuill 21 Apr 2023 16:44

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.

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

Lt Flops 22 Apr 2023 03:04

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.

+ Show Caveats +

---

First, Botnik.

Botnik is not an AI text generator. Not in any meaningful sense. Botnik is a predictive keyboard, and it works like this:

• The user adds/selects from a source corpus and makes an input.
• Based on the source and user input(s), Botnik provides a list of words that are most likely to come next.
• The user must then select a word from this list.
• The process repeats; Botnik provides words, the user selects a specific word, ad infinitum.

Hence, Botnik requires significant human interaction to output anything of value. Much of the relevant outputs in SCP-\̅\̅\̅\̅-J, The Great Hippo's Proposal (feat. PeppersGhost), and Pounded in the Butt by the Screaming Gristle Beacon from Site-Everything are nonsense, and harnessed for very specific ends, either comedic or horrific. The difference between ChatGPT and Botnik is more than one of degrees: ChatGPT is genuinely intelligent, whereas Botnik is not.

Second, the question of grandfathering.

In the previous thread, SCP-6973 was referenced as an instance of an AI-written work that should be grandfathered in. I support grandfathering, if for no other reason than the problem of perverse incentives that arise when creating rules that apply retroactively. The author of SCP-6973 worked with AI materials when it was permitted, and shouldn't see consequences (i.e., the summary deletion of their skip). All else aside, there's another reason to keep SCP-6973: It was an experiment that produced results, is interesting, and can be learned from.

---

This post was not written by ChatGPT.

---

🌱 Plant the seeds of tomorrow in the soil of today ❤️

Last edited on 22 Apr 2023 03:10 by Lt Flops Show more

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

Uncle Nicolini 22 Apr 2023 19:12

i agree with floppy on all of her points here.

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

OriTiefling 22 Apr 2023 20:16

Agreeing with Flops on the above and thanking Flops for outlining the arguments I would've made for me.

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

torcsandantlers 24 Apr 2023 01:09

I pretty well agree with Flops here.

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.

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

scalykitty 25 Apr 2023 17:42

I agree with Flops, Aster, and CD.

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.

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

gashv 23 Apr 2023 01:57

I'm in general agreement with LT flops and CD

Re: [Discussion] AI generated text on the wiki

LORDXVNV 23 Apr 2023 14:57

Agree with flops on the use of ai text if noted — knowing how to write like a robot or a dead person is a skill in itself.

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.

page 1 of 212next »