Should AI generated posts be banned or otherwise regulated?

@mitch2 - if you want more features, more queries per day, etc, they DO charge for it; no mystery, these platforms have multiple tiers with monthly or yearly plans. 

@hilde45  The Abstract does not articulate the results so it is a bit confusing when reading it.  The best way to comprehend the whole experiment is by Fig. 2 in 'Result' section.  

There are two statistical tests, including (1) Identify condition and (2) Take proper action / disposition, on two groups.  The two groups are (1) direct query (by professional) to LLMs and (2) response from end users using LLMs and User Interface (UI). 

Here is the confusing part you were running to.  The end user being randomly assigned to use one of the LLMs is called 'treatment group', and the end users using the any assistance (including internet search) at home is called 'control group' in the article.  The control group end users are instructed to use any assistance they would typically use at home through internet search.  The researchers also wants to find out if there is significant difference between two groups of end users.  The findings are:

(1) The 'control group' end users perform significantly (statistically) better in identifying condition than the 'treatment group' (upper right chart); and

(2) The 'control group' end users do NOT perform better in taking proper actions than the 'treatment group' (lower right chart).

Now it comes to the main part of results comparing (1) end users responses using LLMs and (2) direct query to LLMs.  The results indicate: (using GPT-40 for illustration)

(1) GPT-40 identifies 94.7% conditions (upper left chart) and the end users group identify approximately low 30% - low 40% condition (upper right chart);

(2) GPT-40 model accuracy in recommending proper action is 64.7% (lower left chart) and the end users group accuracy is merely 40% (lower right chart)

Hope this help.

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

This is akin to the old adage, "I live my life based on what I've heard"

Everybody rows their own boat.

  I am interested in what members have to say, not AI generated garbage.  

Well one might say that if a valued member posts AI content, then that IS what they have to say.  As a bonus, it also means they cared enough to check the facts before speaking.  FWIW.

@stereo5 "...I REFUSE to read any AI generated posts."

Wow. That is an amazing stance. 

I study philosophy, consciousness and the mind. One of my observations a couple decades ago was that when I quickly offer an opinion on something, I am tapping what I think of as my quick database (as opposed to stopping or a minute and thinking through the question). I noticed over time it is full of junk. With the advent of the iPad, I just started checking everything... each time I offered an opinion. Wow, it was full of junk. Unlike an LLM which is only occasionally wrong, which used a vast experience database far beyond the ability to access of a human and which under only certain conditions under which it is wrong. Think I’d have to take the opposite stance. 

I read a great book: Being Wrong, by Kathryn Schulz. It showed how bad memories actually are, the older the memory the worse... how light bulb memories are frequency completely wrong. 

There are lots of posters on Audiogon. Some are thoughtful, experienced with lots of different kinds of experiences and can that can be very helpful. Then there are those that are not reflective with limited experience and are not likely to provide valuable information.

So, I guess if I needed high end audio information and wanted to make a broad generalization... I’d go for the LLM every time. So my generalization would be the opposite.