Should AI generated posts be banned or otherwise regulated?

Thank you, @hilde45, for providing interesting information.

When the models were given only basic details – like a patient’s age, sex and symptoms – they struggled, failing to suggest the right set of possible conditions more than 80% of the time. Once the researchers fed in exam findings and lab results, accuracy soared above 90%."

There are more to it.  I want to highlight the following in the articles too.  Note that Nature Medicine journal receives a very high 5-year impact factor (citation) of 52 in 2024.  The multidisciplinary Nature received 55 in the same year.  These are highly prestigious journals. Typically, a journal with an impact factor of 10 or above is considered a “top” journal in its field of study.

A February 2026 study in Nature Medicine showed something surprising. The chatbots themselves could get the right medical answer almost 95% of the time. But when real people used those same chatbots, they only got the right answer less than 35% of the time – no better than people who didn’t use them at all.

This can not adequately illustrate the importance of how AI is used as a tool. Intelligent people make the best use of AI to their advantage, while average users may misuse it and continue to complain about it.

I REFUSE to read any AI generated posts.  I am interested in what members have to say, not AI generated garbage.  

So you "REFUSE to read any AI generated posts" even it is correct.  "I am interested in what members have to say" even they are wrong, not AI generated garbage.  Is it what you try to say?

I found a phenomenon quite interesting, and I think it’s often true: many people tend to appeal to authority, and in their minds, they may also aspire to become the authority one day. When AI appears to “steal the thunder / spotlight” or undermine that role, some people react by criticizing or attacking AI.

The fear that AI will take away jobs is also present, but it is not relevant here. 

@lanx0003  Thanks for sharing study -- medical research really isn't my area, so I'm just doing my best to make sense of it. But a few things caught my eye and I'm not sure what to make of them.

If I'm reading it right, didn't the control group -- people just using regular internet search -- actually do *better* than the LLM users at identifying the right conditions? It seemed like LLM users had notably lower odds of getting it right than people who didn't use AI at all. Maybe I'm misreading that, but if not, does that make the "skilled users will do fine" argument harder to sustain?

I also noticed the authors mention things like algorithm aversion and automation bias as part of the problem -- and those seem like they'd trip up pretty much anyone, not just less experienced users. Am I wrong about that?

And then at the end they seem to be calling for systematic redesign and better regulatory testing before deployment, rather than just hoping users get more savvy. That reads to me more like a systems problem than a user problem -- but again, this isn't really my wheelhouse so I could easily be missing somthing.

Curious what you think, especially if you read those sections differently.

I wouldn't say ban it.  I like doing my own research.  AI is for the lazy or non inquisitive.  Like, that's just my opinion man.