Should AI generated posts be banned or otherwise regulated?

  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. 

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

Interesting, because the older I get, the more sure I am that I am right! 

Here is how AI responded to the initial post. I think ai is very open minded

per AI:

“That forum OP comment is actually pretty reasonable. The core point is:

People start threads to hear human judgment, experience, taste, ownership history, listening impressions, and judgment calls — not a generic synthesized answer they could have generated themselves.

A good response might be:

I think AI-generated posts should at least be disclosed. The issue is not that AI is useless; it can summarize specs, explain concepts, or organize information. But on an audio forum, the real value is usually personal experience: what someone heard, owned, compared, repaired, regretted buying, or learned the hard way.

If a poster uses AI as a drafting aid but adds their own judgment, experience, or corrections, that can be useful. But simply pasting an AI answer as though it were a human opinion weakens the discussion. It can create the illusion of expertise without accountability.

So I would not necessarily ban it outright, but I would favor disclosure and moderation when AI posts are repetitive, generic, misleading, or crowd out genuine member experience.

The strongest distinction is:

AI as assistant: acceptable.
AI as substitute forum member: not very useful.

For audio especially, AI cannot honestly say, “I heard the speakerin a treated room with certain amps and compared it to the other spkr.  That is the gold coin.”

@ghdprentice, why is my stance so amazing?  I am on here because I like to talk audio with HUMANS.  If I have to talk to AI, then why would I need to talk to you or anyone else here?  It is my PERSONAL CHOICE.  RESPECT IT and  move on. 
In ten years or even less, many jobs will be replaced by AI.  There are going to be millions of unemployed people and as bad as the economy is now, it will be much worse then.