Should AI generated posts be banned or otherwise regulated?

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. 

Interesting what AI had to say about “Technological Unemployment”.

“Predictions that new inventions will create mass, permanent unemployment have occurred frequently throughout history, dating back to at least the time of Aristotle. While technology often renders specific jobs obsolete, historical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that these predictions of mass unemployment have been wrong. Over the long term, technological advancements have created more jobs than they destroyed, while significantly raising standards of living.”

Examples include:

• The Printing Press (1440s)
• The Power Loom (1810s)
• Electricity and Light Bulbs (late 1800s)
• The Automobile (early 1900s)
• ATMs (1980s)
• The Internet (1990s)

I guess we can now add AI to the list.

@lanx0003 Thanks for that clear walk through -- genuinely appreciated. We can leave things here.

(One thing I'll keep turning over: namely that LLM users weren't just equivalent to the control group on condition identification -- they were measurably worse. Unless I'm confused, that finding alone seems like the sharpest challenge to the "skilled users will figure it out" interpretation, and I'm not sure the thread has fully reckoned with it. But it's time for a walk.)

@mitch2 Here's what your AI said:

“Predictions that new inventions will create mass, permanent unemployment have occurred frequently throughout history, dating back to at least the time of Aristotle. While technology often renders specific jobs obsolete, historical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that these predictions of mass unemployment have been wrong. Over the long term, technological advancements have created more jobs than they destroyed, while significantly raising standards of living.”

Here's what my AI said in response:

"The historical claim is largely accurate -- previous waves of technological disruption ultimately generated more jobs than they eliminated, and living standards rose alongside productivity. The pessimists were repeatedly wrong, and that track record deserves acknowledgment.

But there are reasons to be cautious about applying that pattern to the current moment. Previous automation displaced physical or routine cognitive labor while leaving complex judgment and creativity largely intact. 

AI is different in kind -- it's encroaching on precisely those domains previously considered automation-proof. The historical sample may not be analogous.

The distributional point also gets glossed over too easily. "More jobs created than destroyed" is a macroeconomic consolation that the handloom weavers of the 1800s couldn't spend. Transition costs fall unevenly and can span generations.
And speed matters. Previous disruptions unfolded over decades, allowing institutions and labor markets to adapt. Current AI development is compressing that timeline considerably, which could overwhelm adaptive capacity even if the long-run equilibrium is ultimately positive.

So -- historically informed optimism, yes. Complacency, no."

Fun, huh?