• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

About that new 9(a) rule

Sven Karma

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2017
Messages
4,236
Reaction score
4,027
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Not that I object to it, or think I'm likely to fall foul thereof, but how does it work if e.g. you re-post a TwitterX post, like that one of Trump as a King that he himself posted which in the absence of prior attribution might be AI work but might equally be a photoshop composite?
 
I like the rule but hope mods give out warnings before points because I have a feeling some people who may already be copy/pasting AI may miss the updated guidance and violate the policy unwittingly.

I like AI but I hate it when people copy/paste AI as if it's a valid source. I confess to sometimes using AI to speed up my searches or other tasks but it's never a replacement for human thought and shouldn't be treated as such. I'm glad the mods/admin are taking a stand here.
 
NatMorton said:
I think there's subtle difference between linking to content that someone else generated with AI vs posting material that you generated with AI.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that clarifies it for me . I thought it was linking to AI created material. Wiki uses AI to generate responses but it is labeled as AI.
 
I'm glad about it. I always attribute and italicize any generated material. It really surprised me to see someone use random uncredited AI text as the basis for most of a thread outside the AI subforum. I'm glad they can do something to prevent that in the future.
 
Peacenik said:
How is it possible to tell the difference?

It seems like it would be very easy to inadvertently CP something and not even know it was AI.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't be copy pasting lots of text without attribution anyway, that's already a rule.
 
My suggestion is to be reasonable, and also critical, of what you post. Perhaps avoiding the mistake of passing of AI Generated content as being real.

The further we go the more challenging this may get but odds are there will be enough clues, and lack of multiple sources, to help with being critical.
 
If you google a subject, AI provides a summary overview. I've read them and they're written quite well and generally fair and non-controversial. I would sometimes cut and paste a few sentences to provide a context and background for a deeper more involved subject that I will write about. But I can see the point here, left unchecked this site becomes a massive AI paste and cut job with less and less real input from the participants. I don't think any of us wants that.
 
ASHES said:
Shouldn't be copy pasting lots of text without attribution anyway, that's already a rule.
Click to expand...
Providing a source link is all fine and well. Everyone is required to do that already. But it is entirely possible to do that and inadvertently post AI still without even knowing it is being done.
 
It's still fine to do that. The only requirement is to add a disclaimer.
 
I know.

Here's what to do.

Everything you CP, simply add a disclaimer that it was CP'd and could possibly contain AI. (Because you don't really know.)

Then you have CYA.
 
Peacenik said:
Providing a source link is all fine and well. Everyone is required to do that already. But it is entirely possible to do that and inadvertently post AI still without even knowing it is being done.
Click to expand...
Ok, that possibility was discussed up above, and the distinction about the rule.
 
ASHES said:
Ok, that possibility was discussed up above, and the distinction about the rule.
Click to expand...
Not everyone sees all posts.

Internet abuse requires an abuser and an enabler. Once someone has demonstrated they will abuse, if the abuser is not cut off, it is defacto accepting there will be more abuse. That becomes enabling. If everyone were to simply take this action, refusing to become enablers, there would be no internet abuse.

Logically, there are a percentage of messed up minds who seek forums such as this to have interactions with others, often because many refuse to have anything to do with them IRL.

Therefore, it is logical and expected that the Ignore Feature has a place and should be used. Wise mature minds utilize it.

Hence, not everyone sees all posts.

Just because something was discussed by a poster there can be no logical expectation that everyone has seen such a post. Part of the nature of online forums.
 
ASHES said:
Shouldn't be copy pasting lots of text without attribution anyway, that's already a rule.
Click to expand...
 
Whoa now. We were like 10 posts in not 10 pages. Wasn't a criticism, just a go back and read what's been written to answer your questions maybe.
 
@Lovebug that's the new rule, under discussion. The rule I was referencing that also addresses heavy copy pasting lots of text and proper attribution was just 9, not 9a.

9. Sourced Material - All material being posted from outside of DebatePolitics.com (external material) MUST contain a link to the original source or citation with original author. This applies to all external material, regardless of whether it is copyright protected or not.

In addition, a limitation of 2-3 medium-sized paragraphs per thread is allowed. Proper format is to copy and paste the text of the same-source material, place it inside the 'quote tags' and then offer a link to the material source page for further reading. The 'quote tags' are located in the post creation window.
 
Just do this:

AI Overview

Snowflakes form in the atmosphere when water vapor condenses directly into ice crystals, which then grow and develop unique shapes as they fall to the ground.
 
ASHES said:
Whoa now. We were like 10 posts in not 10 pages. Wasn't a criticism, just a go back and read what's been written to answer your questions maybe.
Click to expand...
So if others hold certain ideals they should simply be compromised upon the order of another poster?

The problem with that naive notion is it blithely discounts the commitment to such ideals.

The holder of which is likely to disagree. That is precisely the case here.
 
Ideals
 
I know, was just posting the new rule so we don't have to search.
 
anyone know what a "continuation post" is?
 


using quote tags on sourced material is non-optimal because you cannot requote the content inside of the quote tags

clearly indicating it's quoted material should be sufficient
 
ASHES said:
Ideals View attachment 67575571
Click to expand...
Cute. Shallow.

One can strive to be better. It is socially logical. And after all. We live in societies.

Why is it logical?

It is a personal choice. Why bother?

Because we are all part of the collective of humans on this finite planet. Believe it or not, what each of us does affects the whole. If everyone thought of the big picture; and included such considerations into their decision making, nation and world would improve more quickly. Because so many do not, and simply enjoy the beauty of the world created by others, while feeling no need to contribute, progress is very slow and haphazard, with certain losses (such as maga) to offset the gains.

Therefore, it is logical to have ideals and strive to be better.

Here is an example. Bad news and rumors travel faster than good news and the truth. But people like feel good stories because they get burnt out on bad news. That means the potential ripple effect of one good turn is greater than that of bad vibes. That is why, despite all the bad news and bad people in the world, the world eventually improves.

War, poverty and crime is being ultimately displaced by Peace and prosperity because doing good things is more highly regarded than doing bad things.

The immature poorly informed view: Who gives a flock? Nothing really matters.

The mature well-informed view: Doing good is worth while. It really matters, and the resultant endorphins lead to a long happy life. Just look at Jimmy Carter, a truly good person. He was the longest lived president.
 
Prompt: "Please analyze this text and respond in the style of Sheriff Andy Griffith"
Well now, this here's a mighty interesting piece of writin' you've got for me. It's got some good points, some deep thinkin', and even a bit of that "why bother" attitude folks sometimes get.
On Bein' Better
"Cute. Shallow." – That's a mighty quick way to sum somethin' up, ain't it? But then you go right into how folks can strive to be better, and how that's just plain socially logical. And you're right, we do live in societies, and we gotta get along.
You ask why it's logical, and then you answer it yourself. It's about being part of this collective of humans on this one planet. What one person does, it can sure enough ripple out and affect everyone else. If we all pitched in and thought about the big picture, well, I reckon things would mend up a lot faster. When folks just take from the world and don't feel the need to put somethin' back, that's where things get a bit slow and bumpy, like a wagon on a rocky road.
So, it's mighty logical to have ideals and try to be a better person. It just makes good sense.
The Power of Good
You hit the nail on the head when you talk about how bad news travels faster than good. But folks, they get tired of all that negativity, don't they? They crave a good story, a little somethin' to lift their spirits. That means a single good turn can have a bigger splash than all the bad vibes put together. And that's why, even with all the trouble in the world, things generally lean towards gettin' better.
You see, peace and prosperity are always tryin' to nudge out war, poverty, and crime. And that's 'cause folks, deep down, they appreciate a good deed more than a bad one. It's just the way we're wired, I reckon.
Two Ways of Lookin' at It
Now, you got two views here, and both of 'em ring true in different folks.
The immature, poorly informed view: "Who gives a flock? Nothing really matters." Well, bless their hearts, they might think that, but it's a lonesome way to go through life.
Then you got the mature, well-informed view: "Doing good is worthwhile. It really matters, and the resultant endorphins lead to a long happy life." And you bring up President Jimmy Carter. Now there's a man who's lived a life of service, and look at him, still goin' strong. That just goes to show you, don't it? Bein' good ain't just good for others, it's good for your own soul too.
So, what do you reckon? Does puttin' a little good out into the world make a difference to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…