New forum rule regarding AI content

[Dirt Roads]

I'm certainly not opposed to mass-text postings, but at my age they are certainly becoming harder to digest. 

Since the ban on mass-text postings is a done deal, it seems like the rule should not be limited to AI-generated text.  In my heyday, I was able to produce well-written technical documents over 1,000 pages in length in a fairly short period of time.  A few of them were on topics of interest to other Roadgeeks.  If I still had access to them, I would have likely cut-and-pasted to my heart's content (and perhaps the disdain of others).

I would recommend that the wording be broadened to include any types of mass-postings, with AI-generated content being an example of why such content is being banned.

[Molandfreak]

I'm certainly not opposed to mass-text postings, but at my age they are certainly becoming harder to digest. 

Since the ban on mass-text postings is a done deal, it seems like the rule should not be limited to AI-generated text.  In my heyday, I was able to produce well-written technical documents over 1,000 pages in length in a fairly short period of time.  A few of them were on topics of interest to other Roadgeeks.  If I still had access to them, I would have likely cut-and-pasted to my heart's content (and perhaps the disdain of others).

I would recommend that the wording be broadened to include any types of mass-postings, with AI-generated content being an example of why such content is being banned.

I don't believe anyone has a problem with longer posts that were written directly by the user, since there is usually a point and some topics require a lot of relevant background information. I have posted some of my work that might interest some folks here, though as a link to a PDF.

I would also prefer to read a longer, original post rather than scroll through a wall of quotes I've already read.

[freebrickproductions]

I'm certainly not opposed to mass-text postings, but at my age they are certainly becoming harder to digest. 

Since the ban on mass-text postings is a done deal, it seems like the rule should not be limited to AI-generated text.  In my heyday, I was able to produce well-written technical documents over 1,000 pages in length in a fairly short period of time.  A few of them were on topics of interest to other Roadgeeks.  If I still had access to them, I would have likely cut-and-pasted to my heart's content (and perhaps the disdain of others).

I would recommend that the wording be broadened to include any types of mass-postings, with AI-generated content being an example of why such content is being banned.

I don't believe anyone has a problem with longer posts that were written directly by the user, since there is usually a point and some topics require a lot of relevant background information. I have posted some of my work that might interest some folks here, though as a link to a PDF.

I would also prefer to read a longer, original post rather than scroll through a wall of quotes I've already read.

I'd imagine that a long, original post would also likely have links and pictures throughout it to help illustrate or reference any points made within it (thus helping break-up the wall of text some), while an AI generation that's copy-pasted directly into a forum post most likely won't.

[formulanone]

I came here to discuss things with humans, not computers.

AI still means Artificial Intelligence, so the more one uses it in the company of others, I'm just assuming you're a fake person trying to look smart.

[Beltway]

Given that the Key Bridge threads were publicly readable and tied to a major national event, the lurker‑to‑poster ratio was almost certainly enormous -- easily dozens to one, and likely into the hundreds. The visible replies in a thread don't represent the full audience, especially when hundreds of non‑members read without posting. So an "8 vs 1" headcount doesn't tell us anything about accuracy or honesty; it only reflects who chose to speak.

If more people agreed with you, then they should say so. The people not replying to the thread could just as likely to agree with the eight or so folks callin' you out for sayin' BS.
Claimin' (or at least implyin') that a "silent majority" agrees with you is very much a fallacy, and is also almost certainly not true.

I didn't specify whether they agreed with me or not.

I have participated in a whole range of online forums since 1997 -- highways, aviation, WW II history, naval history, civil war, aviation disasters, railroad, rail transit, maritime/shipping, romance, marriage, golf, baseball, football, astronomy, space program, chemistry, alternative history, religion, Christianity, police work and emergency services, science fiction, engineering, antique cars, and a number of others. Both in moderated and in unmoderated groups.

What I say about online forums is true. Frankly many people want to read and not post, and many people don't want to be beat up on. That explains it.

I've got the turnout gear and bunker clothes for the heat. I'm here to contribute, not retreat.

[Molandfreak]

I've got the turnout gear and bunker clothes for the heat. I'm here to contribute, not retreat.

[1995hoo]

There have been a few AI post dumps that are "look how wrong it is" rather than agreeing with what it says. I think those should continue to be allowed.

I would be interested in seeing a proposed amendment which would allow this—perhaps a carve-out for commentary on the output? (On the other hand, there are ways to do a "look at how wrong it is"-type post with commentary without copying and pasting the entire output, e.g. selective quoting of the objectionable parts, so perhaps the proposed rule is adequate as-is?)

Does SMF have a code where you can hide text behind a "spoiler" with a brief description of the content? Other forums I have used in the past had this feature, and I suppose it could be a good compromise if the full context is necessary.

There is a version of the software that allows it, as another forum I read uses identical formatting code to this one and has a tag called "spoiler" where you put that word in brackets (and repeat it with a slash inside brackets to close it) and the result is that it blacks out the text between the tags unless the reader clicks on the black. Essentially, it looks like a redaction. I just tested it here and it didn't work, so the feature must not be enabled.

[WillWeaverRVA]

One particular user is showing exactly what AI is capable in the wrong hands.  I say ban all use of it.

Seconded.

[CtrlAltDel]

The staff proposes adding a new rule to the forum for calendar year 2026 to regulate the usage of automatically generated ("AI") text. The text of the proposed rule is as follows:

What's not allowed:

Direct copy and pastes of bulk unedited output from or conversations with a generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot or other automatic text generator. The purpose of the forum is to facilitate discussion between humans interested in road transportation and related subjects. Long-term storage of machine-generated text is not within the forum's remit. If someone wishes to read machine-generated text, they can use the widely-available tools that exist to generate the text themselves at any time.

I would prefer the word people over humans, but I recognize that will have no effect on the intended meaning here.

Past that, I would extend the ban to include everything.

[PNWRoadgeek]

The staff proposes adding a new rule to the forum for calendar year 2026 to regulate the usage of automatically generated ("AI") text. The text of the proposed rule is as follows:

What's not allowed:

Direct copy and pastes of bulk unedited output from or conversations with a generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot or other automatic text generator. The purpose of the forum is to facilitate discussion between humans interested in road transportation and related subjects. Long-term storage of machine-generated text is not within the forum's remit. If someone wishes to read machine-generated text, they can use the widely-available tools that exist to generate the text themselves at any time.

I would prefer the word people over humans, but I recognize that will have no effect on the intended meaning here.

Past that, I would extend the ban to include everything.

Humans sounds robotic. Though AI is more robotic, and I appreciate the effort the staff are taking to delete it from the platform. I'm very happy, as it will just make the forum feel more original in general.

I wanted to write more because I feel like I've been posting a lot of one-liners, which related to something like this, isn't that necessary as I feel like just saying "AI IS BAD!" Doesn't express anything. AI has uses, but it doesn't belong on a road forum IMO.

That being said, I'm gonna miss the comedic AI art that gets spread in some of the Fictional and more unserious threads.

[Scott5114]

That being said, I'm gonna miss the comedic AI art that gets spread in some of the Fictional and more unserious threads.

The rule as written only applies to AI-generated text. (This thread shows that the community seems to have less of an appetite for AI-generated images than I was thinking, so we may very well expand it in the future.)

[PNWRoadgeek]

That being said, I'm gonna miss the comedic AI art that gets spread in some of the Fictional and more unserious threads.

The rule as written only applies to AI-generated text. (This thread shows that the community seems to have less of an appetite for AI-generated images than I was thinking, so we may very well expand it in the future.)

Alright, a rather interesting move. Will be interesting to see the communities reaction to that as well.

[vdeane]

I am already having discussions with the owner of this forum, and have been going back a few months.

I have been quite critical of the behavior of 8 posters on this forum.
-- Massive numbers of one-liner posts that add nothing any discussion.
-- Massive numbers of garbage posts with images and cartoons
-- A concerted effort by about 6 posters, including government employees, to blow up and shut down any negative discussion about the Baltimore Key Bridge. Note that they engineered the locking of three threads about the bridge.

How about a forum rule against those far greater problems?

Beltway, I'll say it in the nicest way possible: if eight people are calling you out, then you should reflect on yourself and think that maybe there is something you should change about yourself.

Given that the Key Bridge threads were publicly readable and tied to a major national event, the lurker‑to‑poster ratio was almost certainly enormous -- easily dozens to one, and likely into the hundreds. The visible replies in a thread don't represent the full audience, especially when hundreds of non‑members read without posting. So an "8 vs 1" headcount doesn't tell us anything about accuracy or honesty; it only reflects who chose to speak.

If more people agreed with you, then they should say so. The people not replying to the thread could just as likely to agree with the eight or so folks callin' you out for sayin' BS.

Claimin' (or at least implyin') that a "silent majority" agrees with you is very much a fallacy, and is also almost certainly not true.

I would assert that the number of likes posts attract is a decent indicator of what the "silent majority" thinks.

[PNWRoadgeek]

I am already having discussions with the owner of this forum, and have been going back a few months.

I have been quite critical of the behavior of 8 posters on this forum.
-- Massive numbers of one-liner posts that add nothing any discussion.
-- Massive numbers of garbage posts with images and cartoons
-- A concerted effort by about 6 posters, including government employees, to blow up and shut down any negative discussion about the Baltimore Key Bridge. Note that they engineered the locking of three threads about the bridge.

How about a forum rule against those far greater problems?

Beltway, I'll say it in the nicest way possible: if eight people are calling you out, then you should reflect on yourself and think that maybe there is something you should change about yourself.

Given that the Key Bridge threads were publicly readable and tied to a major national event, the lurker‑to‑poster ratio was almost certainly enormous -- easily dozens to one, and likely into the hundreds. The visible replies in a thread don't represent the full audience, especially when hundreds of non‑members read without posting. So an "8 vs 1" headcount doesn't tell us anything about accuracy or honesty; it only reflects who chose to speak.

If more people agreed with you, then they should say so. The people not replying to the thread could just as likely to agree with the eight or so folks callin' you out for sayin' BS.

Claimin' (or at least implyin') that a "silent majority" agrees with you is very much a fallacy, and is also almost certainly not true.

I would assert that the number of likes posts attract is a decent indicator of what the "silent majority" thinks.

So by that logic Spam is the most "silent majority" food in the world? 

[Max Rockatansky]

I am already having discussions with the owner of this forum, and have been going back a few months.

I have been quite critical of the behavior of 8 posters on this forum.
-- Massive numbers of one-liner posts that add nothing any discussion.
-- Massive numbers of garbage posts with images and cartoons
-- A concerted effort by about 6 posters, including government employees, to blow up and shut down any negative discussion about the Baltimore Key Bridge. Note that they engineered the locking of three threads about the bridge.

How about a forum rule against those far greater problems?

Beltway, I'll say it in the nicest way possible: if eight people are calling you out, then you should reflect on yourself and think that maybe there is something you should change about yourself.

Given that the Key Bridge threads were publicly readable and tied to a major national event, the lurker‑to‑poster ratio was almost certainly enormous -- easily dozens to one, and likely into the hundreds. The visible replies in a thread don't represent the full audience, especially when hundreds of non‑members read without posting. So an "8 vs 1" headcount doesn't tell us anything about accuracy or honesty; it only reflects who chose to speak.

If more people agreed with you, then they should say so. The people not replying to the thread could just as likely to agree with the eight or so folks callin' you out for sayin' BS.

Claimin' (or at least implyin') that a "silent majority" agrees with you is very much a fallacy, and is also almost certainly not true.

I would assert that the number of likes posts attract is a decent indicator of what the "silent majority" thinks.

So by that logic Spam is the most "silent majority" food in the world? 

I thought that was baloney?

[LilianaUwU]

I am already having discussions with the owner of this forum, and have been going back a few months.

I have been quite critical of the behavior of 8 posters on this forum.
-- Massive numbers of one-liner posts that add nothing any discussion.
-- Massive numbers of garbage posts with images and cartoons
-- A concerted effort by about 6 posters, including government employees, to blow up and shut down any negative discussion about the Baltimore Key Bridge. Note that they engineered the locking of three threads about the bridge.

How about a forum rule against those far greater problems?

Beltway, I'll say it in the nicest way possible: if eight people are calling you out, then you should reflect on yourself and think that maybe there is something you should change about yourself.

Given that the Key Bridge threads were publicly readable and tied to a major national event, the lurker‑to‑poster ratio was almost certainly enormous -- easily dozens to one, and likely into the hundreds. The visible replies in a thread don't represent the full audience, especially when hundreds of non‑members read without posting. So an "8 vs 1" headcount doesn't tell us anything about accuracy or honesty; it only reflects who chose to speak.

If more people agreed with you, then they should say so. The people not replying to the thread could just as likely to agree with the eight or so folks callin' you out for sayin' BS.

Claimin' (or at least implyin') that a "silent majority" agrees with you is very much a fallacy, and is also almost certainly not true.

I would assert that the number of likes posts attract is a decent indicator of what the "silent majority" thinks.

So by that logic Spam is the most "silent majority" food in the world? 

I thought that was baloney?

That's a reserved word.

[PNWRoadgeek]

I am already having discussions with the owner of this forum, and have been going back a few months.

I have been quite critical of the behavior of 8 posters on this forum.
-- Massive numbers of one-liner posts that add nothing any discussion.
-- Massive numbers of garbage posts with images and cartoons
-- A concerted effort by about 6 posters, including government employees, to blow up and shut down any negative discussion about the Baltimore Key Bridge. Note that they engineered the locking of three threads about the bridge.

How about a forum rule against those far greater problems?

Beltway, I'll say it in the nicest way possible: if eight people are calling you out, then you should reflect on yourself and think that maybe there is something you should change about yourself.

Given that the Key Bridge threads were publicly readable and tied to a major national event, the lurker‑to‑poster ratio was almost certainly enormous -- easily dozens to one, and likely into the hundreds. The visible replies in a thread don't represent the full audience, especially when hundreds of non‑members read without posting. So an "8 vs 1" headcount doesn't tell us anything about accuracy or honesty; it only reflects who chose to speak.

If more people agreed with you, then they should say so. The people not replying to the thread could just as likely to agree with the eight or so folks callin' you out for sayin' BS.

Claimin' (or at least implyin') that a "silent majority" agrees with you is very much a fallacy, and is also almost certainly not true.

I would assert that the number of likes posts attract is a decent indicator of what the "silent majority" thinks.

So by that logic Spam is the most "silent majority" food in the world? 

I thought that was baloney?

That's a reserved word.

For the Stewart's of the world in Cardboard boxes?

[hbelkins]

As someone who's never used an AI chatbot to generate anything, and has no plans to, this rule won't affect me as a poster whatsoever.

I'd much rather see a ban on excessive quote-nesting. 

Seriously, AI text, images, and videos are taking over. Half of the shorts or reels or whatever they're called on Facebook are AI-generated. From truck wrecks with disappearing guardrail to massive snakes being chased off by house cats, it's hard to tell what's real and what's fake. AI-generated "news" stories are everywhere; I saw one today that substituted "Kentucky" and "St. John's" for other college basketball and football teams when there was no basis in fact for what was written.

[kphoger]

I would like to survey the membership's opinion on the wording of the proposed rule to ensure that it's consistent with community standards, and to sanity-check it to ensure that there are neither unintended loopholes nor unintended banning of content the community would find generally acceptable.

The phrase below is vague enough to be meaningless.

unedited output

What counts as editing?  Changing a few punctuation marks?  Swapping in a synonym here and there?  Etc.

[PColumbus73]

I would like to survey the membership's opinion on the wording of the proposed rule to ensure that it's consistent with community standards, and to sanity-check it to ensure that there are neither unintended loopholes nor unintended banning of content the community would find generally acceptable.

The phrase below is vague enough to be meaningless.

unedited output

What counts as editing?  Changing a few punctuation marks?  Swapping in a synonym here and there?  Etc.

If I copy someone's homework, how much do I have to change before it's no longer plagiarism?

[roadman65]

I would like to survey the membership's opinion on the wording of the proposed rule to ensure that it's consistent with community standards, and to sanity-check it to ensure that there are neither unintended loopholes nor unintended banning of content the community would find generally acceptable.

The phrase below is vague enough to be meaningless.

unedited output

What counts as editing?  Changing a few punctuation marks?  Swapping in a synonym here and there?  Etc.

If I copy someone's homework, how much do I have to change before it's no longer plagiarism?

It's funny that when you apply for work and you write a cover letter using key words from the want ad and rearranging them its not plagiarism then.  It gets the algorithm to pay attention to it where a well thought written cover letter will be thrown into a junk file and never see human eyes other than your own.

[Beltway]

If I copy someone's homework, how much do I have to change before it's no longer plagiarism?

It's funny that when you apply for work and you write a cover letter using key words from the want ad and rearranging them its not plagiarism then.  It gets the algorithm to pay attention to it where a well thought written cover letter will be thrown into a junk file and never see human eyes other than your own.

Plagiarism is an academic and journalistic concept -- not a forum‑posting concept.

In academia and journalism, plagiarism is about presenting someone else's work as your own in a context where originality is required and evaluated. Forums aren't graded environments, and nobody is submitting term papers here.

The issue with "unedited AI output" isn't plagiarism in the academic sense; it's about whether a post reflects the user's own engagement with the discussion. Editing punctuation or swapping synonyms doesn't change authorship. The real question is whether someone is contributing their own thinking or just pasting generated text into a conversation.

[Scott5114]

The issue with "unedited AI output" isn't plagiarism in the academic sense; it's about whether a post reflects the user's own engagement with the discussion. Editing punctuation or swapping synonyms doesn't change authorship. The real question is whether someone is contributing their own thinking or just pasting generated text into a conversation.

I had a big, long explanation I was working on with examples, including a hilariously bad ChatGPT output where it hallucinated that Nevada had two SR 74s (one of which was Durango Drive in Las Vegas, and the other being in Ely, neither of which would be possible under Nevada numbering rules), but this actually sums up my thinking in a much more succinct way.

I would put an asterisk on there that it's even though this is not an academic environment, it's a good idea to disclose that you used an LLM for a post, simply because that gives the reader the capability to judge for themselves to what degree they should trust any factual assertions. I wouldn't support making this a bright-line rule, however, just because I don't think it could be enforced in a fair way.

[kphoger]

I would put an asterisk on there that it's even though this is not an academic environment, it's a good idea to disclose that you used an LLM for a post, simply because that gives the reader the capability to judge for themselves to what degree they should trust any factual assertions. I wouldn't support making this a bright-line rule, however, just because I don't think it could be enforced in a fair way.

The rule as you proposed it wouldn't be enforceable either, would it?  How are you going to prove that the user didn't edit the A.I. output?

[GaryV]

Plagiarism is an academic and journalistic concept

Not according to M/W Dictionary:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

It doesn't say anything about the setting of the post or the reason for copying from a source.