Disciplinary - the unknownbeyond

Forum » Rule Application & Record-Keeping / Disciplinary Records » Disciplinary - the unknownbeyond

Started by:

Lt Flops
Date: 16 Aug 2023 02:31
Number of posts: 6

RSS: New posts

Summary:

Repeated posting of AI-generated text content

Unfold All Fold All More Options

Fold

Disciplinary — the unknownbeyond

Lt Flops 16 Aug 2023 02:31

Thread created with the go-ahead of aismallard.

User: theunknownbeyond (Wikidot/SCP Foundation User for 268 days)

There have been repeated suspicions that theunknownbeyond has been posting AI-generated text content to the Wiki. This practice is officially disallowed as of 6 May 2023.

Since May 2023, theunknownbeyond has had the following activity:

+ Show Long Post +

− Hide Long Post −

Staffchat Discussion | On 6 May, theunknownbeyond coldposted four GOI Format articles over the span of an hour (Wayback Machine captures — 1 / 2 / 3 / 4). They have since hit deletion threshold.
- During a discussion in 19cord, users seemed confused by the contents of the articles and concerned as to the manner in which they were posted. When I viewed their sandbox at the time, I found multiple distinct GOI Format articles within past revisions; each one appeared fully-formed in a separate revision, and some were variations on the same premise but framed with different GOIs. Of the four articles posted, two shared a premise. theunknownbeyond denied the articles were AI-generated. When I asked how they wrote the articles, theunknownbeyond claimed they wrote each one, in full, in Notepad, and ported them directly to the Wiki. theunknownbeyond deleted all extant sandboxes later that night, thereby wiping the revision histories. (Wayback Machine capture — contains 24 drafts in sequence).
Staffchat Discussion | Private Crit Team Discussion | On 29 May, theunknownbeyond sought Idea Critique on 19cord (Thread). On 31 May, a member of Critique Staff responded to the request for critique, to which theunknownbeyond replied. Another user reported theunknownbeyond's replies. The team agreed that theunknownbeyond's replies to critique were AI-generated. A warning was issued.
Staffchat Discussion | On 30 May, theunknownbeyond coldposted "SCP-4040-J" (Wayback Machine capture). The article is extant and sits at +1. The article has hallmarks of AI-generated text. There is no associated sandbox. Staff members suspected the article was AI-generated.
Staffchat Discussion | On 21 July, theunknownbeyond coldposted "SCP-346-J" (Wayback Machine capture). The article is extant and sits at +13. The article has hallmarks of AI-generated text. There is no associated sandbox. Staff members suspected the article was AI-generated.
Staffchat Discussion | On 23 July, theunknownbeyond and user HappyDingo posted the co-written "SCP-345-J" (Wayback Machine capture). It has since hit deletion threshold. The article had hallmarks of AI-generated text, and appeared fully-formed in rev 1 of a collab sandbox. In draft-form, it received mostly formatting edits, and 5 small line-edits which only served to degrade the clinical and conversational tones from rev 1. theunknownbeyond has since deleted and reposted the sandbox's previous source text, thereby wiping the revision history.
- Staffchat Discussion | Note — on 21 July, HappyDingo coldposted "SCP-7823". Wayback Machine did not capture the page. It has since hit deletion threshold. The sandbox corresponding to the article is extant (rev 480). Some aspects of the draft, such as the final collapsible, have hallmarks of AI-generated text. The draft not appear fully-formed, but rather iteratively.
On 14 August, theunknownbeyond posted "Rules Of Business" (Wayback Machine capture). It has since hit deletion threshold. 50 "rules" appeared fully-formed in one revision of a sandbox. An additional rule (currently #101) appeared in one isolated revision, and is the only one to contain SPaG errors, which suggests that it is legitimate whereas the others are likely AI-generated. theunknownbeyond has since deleted the sandbox (Wayback Machine capture), thereby wiping the revision history. Entries are similar in form and content to the following ChatGPT output, posted here for comparison purposes: