Should AI generated posts be banned or otherwise regulated?

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.

the power of this forum, on its best days, is the wealth of experience brought to bear by (an admittedly aging) but kind, knowledgeable, articulate population of dedicated hobbyists, whom are collectively seeking learn to from each other, and share ideas, observations, experiences and potential solutions as needed for making wonderful music in their respective systems

ai is a tool, that can aid in this venture to share and collectively raise each others’ enjoyment and well being, just as there are many other research-based tools ranging from old printed articles, older posts from the past here and from other forums, published reviews, and so on

too often folks use these forums to self aggrandize, boast, come across as smarter than thou...  we should try to refrain from this as much as possible and remember the core reason for this board

ai -- imperfect as it may be -- can sometimes help us if used towards our main, shared objective -- but regulating it seems unnecessary as it is just another tool -- it is helpful if those posting messages basically quoting a-i output can identify those posts as such, so that readers can know the source

@jjss49 

I think you’re missing the point. Identifying AI posts as such is not helpful, for the stench of AI is unmistakable anyway.

For sure, AI can be useful and valuable. Sometimes.

AI can also be the crutch of feeble-minded imbeciles.

It is the latter kind of posts we should endeavor to eliminate.