I’ve seen some recent posts involving chatGPT “answers” and I am concerned about the confusion of actual Discourse discussion versus AI “fake discussion” especially in searches of our forum. A number of threads got polluted by chatGPT “answers” that we’re very difficult to tell were not real or even correct. I’ve muted those for myself but thought it might make sense to have some sort of policy for chatGPT and the ilk. As is, it feels like the fake search engine result sites that say “everything you want to buy about topic”…

Here’s a possible policy: if you’re going to post AI-generated content, clearly mark it as such and don’t try to pass if off as a real user. Unmarked AI-generated content will be considered spam and if it’s your only contribution to the forum, you will be banned and blocked like all other spammers.

The lack of terseness of ChapGPT bothers me. Walls of fluff devoid of content is grating to read.

I know a few real people who are just as terse :slight_smile: Makes me wonder if it would be easier for ChatGPT to pass the Turing test, or for a human to pass the “reverse Turing test”, i.e. successfully impersonate ChatGPT?

We are now living Aldous Huxley’s worst nightmare, when the truth is drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

[image] Elrod: The lack of terseness of ChapGPT bothers me. Walls of fluff devoid of content is grating to read. Agreed.

Tongue in cheek, but have you told ChatGPT to make its responses more terse or concise? Had the same issue and would tell it to either outline its response in concise bullet points or constrain itself to only one or two sentences for a response. :joy: Has helped a lot.

[image] StefanKarpinski: even if AI can answer run of the mill programming questions at some point it will still remain very far from the expertise of someone like Chris answering a question about his own code in an area where he is one of the world’s foremost experts I fully agree. It is great to have you here Chris. I keep the fingers crossed. To explicitly articulate it, this comment of course is all on a positive side! Again, I really keep the fingers crossed. :- )

Error: “Chris” is ambiguous. Response type unknown.

Still, keeping the fingers crossed. :- )

Stefan’s copy-pasta remark shamed me into introspecting about how much of my own thought is actually some form of copy-pasta.

chatGPT policy needed?

Meta Discussion

Topic		Replies	Views
Updates to the site guidelines, especially regarding gen-AI Meta Discussion	39	1590	September 11, 2026
I don’t want to read LLM output Meta Discussion	151	4767	September 23, 2026
Non-native English speakers and the use of language assistance Community question , policy	43	1318	November 10, 2026
Are there efforts to improve ChatGPT for Julia code? Tooling	26	4513	July 24, 2023
Let's allow AI output in some restricted sense Meta Discussion	3	367	September 12, 2026

chatGPT policy needed?

Related topics