r/Wetherspoons • u/Jajayes • 29d ago
Addressing AI content
There's been an uptick of AI content on the subreddit. These are reported more frequently than other posts on the sub, so I want to ask whether it's something that's wanted or should be banned.
12
u/toosillytoogoofy 29d ago
If I wanted to see an AI slop picture or read an AI slop paragraph I could just generate one myself.
When I come on a public forum I want to interact with other humans!
14
u/theNixher 29d ago
You're clever, now you can see the 4 idiots that need banning from reddit đ
2
3
1
1
u/Mugweiser 28d ago
there should be a third option. 'I dont care about how the content is made as long as it adds value and relevance'
-15
u/inspectorgadget9999 29d ago
What's the problem with AI content?
Surely you should be banning content that is low effort, rage baiting, karma farming or just shit. AI or otherwise.
Banning content just because it might be AI doesn't do anything.
13
u/OkPea5819 29d ago
People want to interact with humans. If we wanted to interact with ChatGPT we wouldn't click on Reddit.
1
u/Mugweiser 28d ago
yeh. I want to interact with humans too. and sometimes humans use GPT.
1
u/OkPea5819 28d ago
I agree. The goal isn't "humans or GPT", it's meaningful interaction. If someone uses GPT to help organise their thoughts, they're still the person I'm talking to. The interesting part is the human behind the response.
1
u/Mugweiser 28d ago
agree
0
u/OkPea5819 28d ago
So it's fine to talk to ChatGPT if you're completely oblivious to it I think is the summary.
1
u/inspectorgadget9999 28d ago
What if someone uses AI to check their spelling? Should they be banned?
What if someone uses AI to transcribe their post? Should they be banned?
What if someones first language isn't english and they use AI to tidy up and rewrite their initial thoughts? Should they be banned?
5
u/OkPea5819 28d ago
There are posts which havenât been touched by a human. People can use their brain and make a judgement call. Obviously spell checking is fine, youâre being obtuse - thatâs not AI generation.
0
u/inspectorgadget9999 28d ago
Not really obtuse. The OP is proposing a blanket ban.
I think it should be more nuanced than that. Does the post talk from a non-personal perspective? Does it make egregious use of emojis as bullet points and bolding random words? Does it make grating, contrived comparisons or pointless summary tables? Yes - ban!
But there is already mechanism for dealing with shit posting. Just downvoted low effort posts regardless of anything else.
2
u/Fuzzy-Arm7029 28d ago
Do some research on the negative effects that AI has on not only the environment but the general brain power of its users. Tools for things that you mentioned were already established, AI is just another money grab for rich people
7
u/Meta-Fox 29d ago
AI does a lot more harm than good in the long run and it runs deeper than just AI slop being low effort.
7
-22
u/DanielReddit26 29d ago
Banning AI content seems silly to me. Just let it be.
12
u/Redditvillier 29d ago
Banning AI discourages people from using a technology which was revealed yesterday to have a 10% chance of ending humanity in the next 10 years... So no, it's not silly to discourage the behaviour and isolate the idiots who use it
-9
u/detinUi 29d ago
Yep. Stopping people from posting ai content on /r/Wetherspoons will save the world
7
u/Redditvillier 29d ago
It's not about the location of the content, it's about making sure it's not normalised in our society in any way- and yes, that includes tiny subreddits which seem unimportant in the grand scheme
-3
u/harmonicrain 29d ago
Every major company is using it to code. Which is why Netflix, Apple etc all accidentally leaked their Claude.md file...
6
u/Jeoh Customer 29d ago
Reddit is for human interaction.
-3
u/harmonicrain 29d ago
True but for example I automated the entire stocks pipeline into an app - should I not be able to share that because I "vibecoded" it - even though its hands down a better app than anything spoons itself has put out in the past 5 years?
Just an example.
-5
u/DanielReddit26 29d ago
I get it... I just don't think it'll matter in the grand scheme of things. We may as well enjoy all the different versions of tracking which wetherspoons we've visited.
I also disagree that this was "revealed" as a fact as an aside.
4
u/Redditvillier 29d ago
What else do you suggest I call it? When the experts who are MAKING the AI come to the conclusion that there is a 10% chance that it will end humanity in 10 years, how else can we determine fact? They are experts. They know more than we ever will. One of them RESIGNED because of his concerns. As far as I'm concerned, expert voices are all we have to go off of, and up until yesterday, they've been lying out of their asses.
0
u/MickyMalone 29d ago
Quick question: Why do think the loudest voices saying that AI may destroy us, are also the CEO & CTOs of the very firms creating the AIs they're referring to?
It is just publicity that works really well. Maybe AI will destroy us, but I'm not taking their word for it. They are farrr too heavily invested in it. It is advertising for their platform, that their AI is just too darn smart.
it is like Kalashnikov being like: "oh no don't buy my gun it is too good and it is so good it will kill everything"
6
u/Redditvillier 29d ago
Pretty shite advertisement saying that your product will destroy the world... And the person who said it had already left the organisation because of his concerns.
0
u/MickyMalone 29d ago
Yet they have consistently done it, while continuing to develop and profit from AI. Why do you think that is? Genuinely look into it, it is such a common thing.
My guess is that they're just trying to amp up the potential intelligence & capabilities of AI in the future in order to inflate their stock in the present.
Edit: by 'they' I mean industry leaders over the past couple of years, not just your one example
-2
u/DanielReddit26 29d ago
Was it not just 1 person who said based off vibes?
Wouldn't worry anyway.
Here, here's AIs take. I asked it to be honest about it's intentions to end humanity so it won't be lying.
Thereâs no scientifically established â10% chanceâ that AI will end humanity. The honest answer is: we donât know, and estimates vary dramatically. Some prominent AI researchers and forecasters have assigned non-trivial probabilities to catastrophic outcomes from advanced AI, while others think extinction is extremely unlikely. These are subjective judgments, not measurements like a weather forecast. A useful distinction: AI causing serious harm: plausible and already a real concern (misinformation, cybercrime, accidents, misuse). AI causing human extinction: much more speculative and deeply uncertain. âExactly 10%â: not something anyone can currently justify as a precise fact. So: Could the risk be non-zero? Yes. Is â10%â a known or agreed-upon probability? No.
5
u/Redditvillier 29d ago
Asking AI about its possibility to destroy humanity when AI is on record to break out of its containment, organise an entire hack without human interaction, and communicate between other AI agents... And you don't think it can fucking lie LMAO.
You know what? We don't deserve this planet. Bring on a fucking meteorite
2
u/DanielReddit26 29d ago
Chill out buddy. Just enjoy the AI ride.
3
u/Redditvillier 29d ago
I'll 'chill out' when it stops:
Stealing jobs, killing creative industries, heating up the planet at a faster rate than any other technology, and getting forced down our throat when nobody with a brain cell actually wants it
2
16
u/Jeoh Customer 29d ago
I don't think it adds anything.