Another gentle reminder, this time about using AI-generated content

HomeschoolDad

HomeschoolDad

Moderator
Staff member
As noted this morning in another thread, please do not use AI content unless you clearly label it as such. If a post sounds too "canned" or generic, it is very likely the product of AI, and while AI has its proper role in online activity, this is a forum powered by the real-life input of its users, and we seek original content, not something that a computer spits out.

There's no rule against it on CQ as far as I am aware, but it's just not quite the thing to do here. Thanks for your consideration.
 
BlueKumul said:
I would never post an AI-generated text on a forum. This sounds so lazy!
Click to expand...
I know you wouldn't, you're a very sharp writer and you don't need such tools. Using AI is fine, labeling it as such is fine, but nobody should post it as their own work.
 
I have practised my writing style on a rather toxic forum, Personality Cafe, where I posted very often during my personal "dark age" in the late 2010s. Before that, I have edited Wikipedia.
 
Bumping this thread:

Again, please read the admonition in the OP regarding AI-generated content.

Ongoing use of obvious AI-generated content will be deleted at the moderator's discretion. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
 
A new user, who to my knowledge had never contributed anything of substance, was banned today for posting obvious commercial spam, and the spammed thread was deleted.

I monitor this site several times a day, and all such future uses will be dealt with in the same fashion, at my discretion.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
As noted this morning in another thread, please do not use AI content unless you clearly label it as such. If a post sounds too "canned" or generic, it is very likely the product of AI, and while AI has its proper role in online activity, this is a forum powered by the real-life input of its users, and we seek original content, not something that a computer spits out.

There's no rule against it on CQ as far as I am aware, but it's just not quite the thing to do here. Thanks for your consideration.
Click to expand...
I've been doing online apologetics for 20+ years beginning at the Catholics Answers forum (17,000+ posts there) and many others long ago. I have noticed over the years that non-Catholics ask the same questions and raise the same objections over and over again. So, I have written and polished many responses to these basic questions and objections. I'm also a reasonably good writer. Will it be a problem for me to draw upon the work I have already done when responding to others on this forum?
 
RandyCarson said:
I've been doing online apologetics for 20+ years beginning at the Catholics Answers forum (17,000+ posts there) and many others long ago. I have noticed over the years that non-Catholics ask the same questions and raise the same objections over and over again. So, I have written and polished many responses to these basic questions and objections. I'm also a reasonably good writer. Will it be a problem for me to draw upon the work I have already done when responding to others on this forum?
Click to expand...

Not in the least. I welcome your contributions, in fact, in my quest to restore this forum at least to some of the excellence that CAF was, work such as yours is essential.

I never had an issue with CAF, but obviously the powers there did, so they took it down. The lively debate and discussion was vital to the life of the Church, and I've always had a hunch --- nothing more than that, I can't prove it --- that the CA people got "spooked" by all of those writing in with scrupulosity problems, and thought they might end up with a liability lawsuit or something, by someone who perceived an injury due to advice they were given. Scrupulosity is a horrible mental condition

Glad to have you on board, and keep the good material coming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top