Jail time for BUX
Serious question.
With Kyle and Carson recently deciding that AI generated content in WA posts should stop, and recently, Diane Scorpio making us aware of this (grateful thanks Diane), I would like a little clarity.
Can somebody help please
If I read a post created by somebody else and that post contains AI created content that has been copied into it – what happens if I press the like button, or worse still, respond to that person’s post.
Will I be sent to WA jail for actively encouraging that third person to use AI content in posts by pressing the like button.
All answers in a cake please, with a file.
Bux
Recent Comments
99
Hey, Bux.
Happy New Year! and thank you for putting this out there.
The comments are real meat and should become a "must-read" for everyone.
I do not use AI much - well not yet anyway.
I use it to frame my articles, do research, etc.
In December last year, I started to "train" ChatGPT to get to know me and my writing style better.
Partha shares a "Wow!" template for this but all I have been doing is talking to and with ChatGPT.
Sometimes I talk about nothing important to business but about me and how I spent my weekend.
What I have noticed is that "it" is starting to feel alive - much like I am talking to a friend in another country.
Yet still, I continue to write my content in my articles for myself.
This month, I am going to start using AI to help me improve some of my old articles.
In WA, I have never used AI to write a blog post.
That just seems, well, . . . you know.
So this is me.
Rambling on and telling it the way I see it.
Great question!
100% Cassi of Troy content 😊
Thanks for the support Cassi.
I asked because I was confused. It turns out that most of it spirals around two key words AI-assisted and AI-created,
As I understand it now - AI assisted is using AI as a reference source and then putting it into your own words as you would if you read a book and the wrote a post. Whereas AI-created is just a copy and paste with minimal editing, and we've all seen them.
Ramble on my friend, you're in good company.
Bux
I'll ramble, Bux. 😂
That is what people have to understand, the difference between AI-Created and AI-Assisted.
The latter is where we want to be.
And AI can assist us with writing too.
Use what it puts out as a GUIDE, add your thoughts and feelings and you're good to go.
This is now an excellent WA reference blog.
Cassi
Perfectly put - add your thoughts and feelings - and give it that personal and human touch.
Thanks
Bux
AI is the New SPAM.
Just like Broadcast Email, the AI platforms assist in doing A LOT of things FASTER. AI, eMail Broadcasting, Automated Sequences, Video Clipping into Shorts and a pethora of other "tools" are removing the "human" factor from society.
AI = "Artificial" Intelligence.
Learn to love it.
We now have Video Filters to make us look more (or less) attractive.
We have AI generated Videos, that create false "realities".
We have actual humans, using a profile photo of a cartoon, or a flower.
I think we WAers, need to get to Las Vegas and have a meeting!
BRAD MagicBrad GUDIM
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
OK, where are these video filters to make us look beautiful???
Asking for a friend…
😂 😂 😂
Darlene
Thank you Bux for bringing up this interesting topic :)
In my opinion, AI is a technology which has a good side and a bad side like any other technology based on the way we use it. Instead of stopping using AI in generating content, I would train my AI in addition to learning how to ask detailed questions to give me the desired answer.
WA is an academy and I learned a lot from it, so why can't we dive more and learn how to perfect using AI in generating content?
Cheers,
Wael
We can, Wael :)
It is about how to present this AI content; as long as it is checked and cross-referenced, voice, experience, style, and emotions are inputted. Thus a polished piece ready to serve a purpose.
Thank you, Bux :) I appreciate your kind sentiments. You have to teach me graphics, lol.
Your welcome Abie, the sentiments were meant sincerely.
Graphics, just doodle every day - five minutes 15 minutes, but every day. Don't worry what they look like, you get better. It's just lines at the end of the day.
Bux
Yep you opened a new route/strategy for me... I am going with that action! I appreciate it, Bux :)
Thank you for bringing this topic to the forefront again, David.
I want to say I enjoyed everyone's comment in the post, "Jail time for BUX." I like the images as well, David.
I am moving away from AI almost as quickly as I started to accept it. I am also becoming more anti-Google, along with this shift in my mindset...but I digress...however, I do enjoy the conversation.
I hope everyone has an excellent #humpday!
-Matt
Thanks Matt, love your profile image.
That is Frederick William behind the bars, styled on my grandfather and some would say the best place for him. Shame.
Bux
If you had ever met him, you would know. He could drink like a fish and would fight anything, but we all loved him. To us grand-kids he was a gentle old soul and always saw us right.
Take care Matt
Bux
Hi Bux,
For some reason, I have seen neither of the messages you refer to. Perhaps I was asleep at the time.
I can't say that I understand the idea (yet) that it's OK to use AI to create content on our websites (of course, edited to reflect our human slants) and not do the same for
WA-based posts.
Perhaps that is not what is meant. Can someone please enlighten me...
;-)
Richard
Hey Richard,
(Happy New Year btw :) )
You can see my comment above/below.
It's not so much AI-content is "banned".
It's POOR AI-content that has no actionable advice and doesn't explain the "how's".
This is typically produced by simply using a prompt such as
"Write me an article about XXXXXX"
I think most of us know now that when you do that you'll get a few hundred words that completely lack any substance, are completely exaggerated and over-the-top, repeat certain "AI words" we see with every single AI "copy and paste" generated text.
As I've mentioned, there are those on the platform simply going to AI and prompting something like
"Write me an article with 10 SEO tips"
And what's produced is a bullet-point list that basically says NOTHING.
Do keyword research
Write quality content
Use meta tags
Promote your content on social media
etc. etc. etc.
One thing always comes to mind when you read these types of articles
How? How? How? How?
There is absolutely no explanation, but rather a load of words on the page that mean nothing.
It is this type of "content" that will NEVER rank in the search engines, but on WA the "author" may be viewed as an expert, which I feel is extremely unfair to newbies.
I have seen this kind of content on the platform, a newbie asks a question, receives a ChatGPT reply to their comment, which once again provides absolutely no actionable points, no help, and no value.
The newbie leaves confused and potentially thinks that this business is not for them.
Going back to my "Doctor comment" in my reply to Bux, most people wouldn't dare tell a Doctor how to cure cancer based on what ChatGPT tells them.
They realise that they are playing games with other people's lives and the Doctor is likely to just laugh at them
Surely, it's no different from "providing SEO advice" by simply asking ChatGPT to "write me an article about SEO".
Just how I see it.
Hi Richard
You have a great point.
In my opinion, the best way to use AI on any platform, including our websites, is to clearly define the issue, let AI help with the research, fact-check all information, learn from the process for self-improvement (which may include doing our own research), and present the information in a fashion that is useful and palatable.
We need to give people the courtesy of communicating with them on a human level.
I always thoroughly enjoy reading your posts at WA. 😎
Frank 🎸
Partha, a brilliant reply that has cleared a lot of the fog that I was looking through.
Thanks buddy.
Bux
@ParthaB, "FrankB.1,
Hi all
Starting with a Happy New Year to you all too (Partha). My life's a bit topsy-turvy right now, so I may be missing a few posts.
Thanks for your comments here and below. That is what I would have guessed. I agree with every word.
I don't like to guess about what others have said, hence my question.
Thanks for the compliment, Frank! From one musician to another: appreciated!
Thanks for your post, Bux! It reflects an important discussion to have.
Unfortunately, I think AI is contributing to a degree of laziness; many "writers" appear to be avoiding thinking enough or perhaps just avoiding adding their own thoughts.
Personally, I find that AI saves me a lot of hours finding ideas and creating a first draft, but from there on, it still takes focused effort to edit to add what I want and to improve the "oh so much loved AI-isms"!
:-)
Richard
I fully agree, Richard!
AI shouldn't stifle the learning process; it should enhance it and give the reader a chance to benefit from it, too.
Musicians are the Best, 😎 🎶
Frank 🎸
Hi Bux
Years ago, I had a patient who spoke just like an AI, and he didn't even have a college education. Lol, anybody can do it.
I can't imagine what AI detection program works well enough to be able to detect AI with any actionable positive predictive value. See, I'm typing things from my brain directly to my own fingers, and it sounds a bit "robotic," even without the "Ah, the ..." and "Oh, the ..." sentence openings.
OpenAI sunset their own AI detector because it wasn't reliable, even for their own generated AI content!
Therefore, I believe the WA AI detection process would have to be done manually, when it "seems" to be totally obvious.
I always write "(courtesy of AI)" before any AI-generated content in my WA posts. I even give a rough percentage of "Human-written" content at the end of the post.
P.S. You look pretty good behind those bars! Any last requests? Lol 😎
Rock On! 🤘
Frank 🎸
Having a ball in here Frank. 3 slices of bread a day and as much water as I can drink. Thanks for the thoughts. ha ha.
I hear what you say. I can tell that some posts on here are a full copy and paste from an AI Q&A. No attempt to rephrase or edit. What happens if we press ""like"" are we considered as supporting them.
If AI is used there is no problem in reading what AI has suggested and then putting it into one's own words, with the Oh's and Ah's. We all do similar when we read a book or search on google.
Partha has written a great response that has really helped.
Take care buddy, keep those music tips coming.
Bux
I think the quality of our response is more important than if we push the "like" button or not, Bux. However, no one here is going to penalize you for pressing it.
Most of the time, I notice that when I answer a totally AI-generated post with a "human" response, I get a human-written response back. 😎
Rock On! 🤘
Frank 🎸
See more comments
It's the 100% copied and pasted AI posts that WA is trying to discourage. When you post a copied and pasted AI post here to WA it makes new users think this is a correct way to use the tool, and that's where we want to eliminate any confusion.
Using AI inside WA blog posts doesn't actually make much sense to me in all honesty. This is where we communicate and share with each other. When you write a note to a loved one it shouldn't sound like a book report. And beyond that it's super easy to spot a mile away even when people say they've input their emotion. You shouldn't have to manually input emotion when you're speaking with friends, lol.
To me it's like if I'm Batman and you know I'm Batman then why would I use the weird Batman voice when it's just you and me talking in a room kind of thing, lol. 😂
And no, you wouldn't be punished for liking a post lol.
Keep on truckin, brotha!
Thanks Eric, I really appreciate the time you've taken to comment. And I'm sure a lot more WA members will be grateful for some clarity too.
Abie and Partha have also commented with some very constructive words that make perfect sense (now).
I'm all for people using information sources as reference material, but I want to feel their emotions and connections to the subject. And your analogy makes perfect sense.
Thanks for the ""get out of jail card""
Bux