TOS Question: ChatGPT

[Sisterlimonpot]

I never told anyone to ban this user. I think that was a very extreme way of handling it.

I would have just privately messaged them as a mod/admin.

@revhtree

Not knowing the details. I think it's extremely easy for the administrators of the site to spot bots.

 

[revhtree]

This member’s account is restricted until they reach out to me. I have sent them a note. We deal with an insane amount of DAILY spam, scam and bot activity. If they are indeed human we will work to restore their account.

 

[Matt L]

How about we all give the source of our info when giving advice? Emphasizing opinion, experience, or third party info. This instance is sorta like copying and pasting from the web. I prefer to give an excerpt and the full internet link when giving third party advice.

 

[Miami Reef]

This member’s account is restricted until they reach out to me. I have sent them a note. We deal with an insane amount of DAILY spam, scam and bot activity. If they are indeed human we will work to restore their account.

Ah, I see. Yes, that seems much for reasonable and fair. Thanks for clearing it up!

 

[Tahoe61]

I’m just emphasising the precedent that it brings as we often use other websites in discussions. I may have to think twice before I post a link to a article from here on now.

With respect to AI folks can usually ask for the source of the information obtained by it, with respect to questions to do with saltwater aquaria some folks would be surprised how often this forum shows up as a source of the information.

If you hear the sound of hooves think horses not zebras. You're blowing this way way out of proportion.
No precedent has been set.
You're coming out in defense of some anonymous poster. Nothing changed today. It's wild speculation to suggest that poster need now think twice. Just use common sense.

 

[Nonya]

Not knowing the full history behind this thread, I feel that this may set a sad precedent if the member was just banned without given a reason prior.
I have many times just copy and pasted information from other websites and articles that was useful to the OP asking a question. I know I am not the only one that has done it.

Are we all at risk of being banned from this site?

I'm with you on this. I saw no intent to do anything but to contribute and help. His intro post said he has a FW background and wanted to switch to SW. Yes, it was clear that his posts were AI generated, but can any of us say we've never consulted the Internet for data to support a post in a thread without citing the source(s)?

 

[revhtree]

This is actually a good discussion that will help us refine our TOS for the future in regards to AI generated content. What that looks like it yet to be determined and I’m sick today so it won’t happen soon! Have a good day.

 

[exnisstech]

What about responses based on web searches?

Any time I'm offering advice and it isn't from first hand experience or something I know to be fact I always state that the info I'm providing is info I've read or heard about others doing etc. There is way too much misinformation tossed about as fact.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

but can any of us say we've never consulted the Internet for data to support a post in a thread

Yes, and it usually results is getting caught after more detailed questions are asked.

I think it's the communities responsibility to flesh out information that makes you squint or tilt your head.

although it will never happen, at least state that you consulted AI to arrive at your response.

 

[revhtree]

I’ve talked with this member and they are indeed human and just trying to help. I’ve asked them not to parrot ChatGTP for now while we work on refining our stance as a forum. Thanks and now I really have to go get in the bed. Fever since yesterday.

 

[twentyleagues]

I’ve talked with this member and they are indeed human and just trying to help. I’ve asked them not to parrot ChatGTP for now while we work on refining our stance as a forum. Thanks and now I really have to go get in the bed. Fever since yesterday.

Feel better!

 

[Crabs McJones]

I’ve talked with this member and they are indeed human and just trying to help. I’ve asked them not to parrot ChatGTP for now while we work on refining our stance as a forum. Thanks and now I really have to go get in the bed. Fever since yesterday.

Sorry buddy, hope you feel better soon!

 

[Schulks]

I’ve talked with this member and they are indeed human and just trying to help. I’ve asked them not to parrot ChatGTP for now while we work on refining our stance as a forum. Thanks and now I really have to go get in the bed. Fever since yesterday.

Hey, I'm sick today too! I think I'm rounding the bend right now. I hope you feel better soon.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I’m just emphasising the precedent that it brings as we often use other websites in discussions. I may have to think twice before I post a link to a article from here on now.

With respect to AI folks can usually ask for the source of the information obtained by it, with respect to questions to do with saltwater aquaria some folks would be surprised how often this forum shows up as a source of the information.

I’ll just give my opinion here…

I don’t think anyone should ever post things for which they have no idea if they are true or not, and it rarely happens. A user who has never had an aquarium parroting an ai clearly fits this description, and the ai posts taken as provided are rarely written with anything except certain authority about the “facts” presented.

There would be nothing wrong with saying something like “I read this at … site” or even “an ai search said..,”. There is something wrong with the way this and some other posts have been written as if the poster was expressing their own opinion.

It is always ok to express any opinion or fact that you believe is accurate, no matter who disagrees with it. It is also ok to quote any source or no source for things you believe are true.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I’ll just give my opinion here…

I don’t think anyone should ever post things for which they have no idea if they are true or not, and it rarely happens. A user who has never had an aquarium parroting an ai clearly fits this description, and the ai posts taken as provided are rarely written with anything except certain authority about the “facts” presented.

There would be nothing wrong with saying something like “I read this at … site” or even “an ai search said..,”. There is something wrong with the way this and some other posts have been written as if the poster was expressing their own opinion.

It is always ok to express any opinion or fact that you believe is accurate, no matter who disagrees with it. It is also ok to quote any source or no source for things you believe are true.

We’re assuming the member in question used AI, I’ve went to one of the thread shared above and read the response.

Partial quote:

3. Nutrient Levels:​

• Phosphate and Nitrate: Having a phosphate level of 0.51 can be concerning, albeit only if it has been consistently high. Torch corals, like many others, can tolerate some nitrates but can be sensitive to elevated phosphates and poor water quality, leading to rough conditions. Strive for a balanced nutrient level (around 0.03–0.1 for phosphate).
• Nutrient Dump: If you're dosing phyto at 150ml daily, analyze whether this is causing excess nutrients to accumulate. While phyto can benefit corals, high volumes might also lead to spikes in nutrients.

This is not a AI generated response to me. Ai doesn’t use abbreviations to start with.
Although we are where we are as the culture on the forum is changing and there is a movement that is asking for fact checking everything that is said. I’m from a older generation that believes in letting folks interact in discussions allow them to research the proposed fixes before implementing them, allowing discussion to happen instead of just allowing a few selected members be carriers of the truth.
This thread is a perfect example of what I’m saying, it wasn’t enough to call them out on the thread, they add to do another thread resulting in a nearly ban.

Here’s one of the threads shared

torch bailout

Good morning. Woke up this morning to my 1 year old torch one of the heads bailed out. So i fragged it. I am not sure why would that happen. Tested my water alk is 9.7 i monitor it weekly or biweekly sometimes its always been 9.5-9.7. I dose all for reef on a redsea doser. My tank is a 150G...

www.reef2reef.com

Who’s at fault here? The person that gave a good answer to a problem or the fact checkers that assumed Ai was being used and try to ridicule the user without evidence?
In my opinion we need to be kind for all users and if they thought Ai was being used there is better ways to go about it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

We’re assuming the member in question used AI, I’ve went to one of the thread shared above and read the response.

Partial quote:

3. Nutrient Levels:​

• Phosphate and Nitrate: Having a phosphate level of 0.51 can be concerning, albeit only if it has been consistently high. Torch corals, like many others, can tolerate some nitrates but can be sensitive to elevated phosphates and poor water quality, leading to rough conditions. Strive for a balanced nutrient level (around 0.03–0.1 for phosphate).
• Nutrient Dump: If you're dosing phyto at 150ml daily, analyze whether this is causing excess nutrients to accumulate. While phyto can benefit corals, high volumes might also lead to spikes in nutrients.

This is not a AI generated response to me. Ai doesn’t use abbreviations to start with.
Although we are where we are as the culture on the forum is changing and there is a movement that is asking for fact checking everything that is said. I’m from a older generation that believes in letting folks interact in discussions allow them to research the proposed fixes before implementing them, allowing discussion to happen instead of just allowing a few selected members be carriers of the truth.
This thread is a perfect example of what I’m saying, it wasn’t enough to call them out on the thread, they add to do another thread resulting in a nearly ban.

Here’s one of the threads shared

torch bailout

Good morning. Woke up this morning to my 1 year old torch one of the heads bailed out. So i fragged it. I am not sure why would that happen. Tested my water alk is 9.7 i monitor it weekly or biweekly sometimes its always been 9.5-9.7. I dose all for reef on a redsea doser. My tank is a 150G...

www.reef2reef.com

Who’s at fault here? The person that gave a good answer to a problem or the trolls that assumed Ai was being used?

I expressed my opinion about both this users posts here and in two of the threads where they were made, and my opinion on what the reef2reef terms of service should be.

Rev is discussing the matter with the user in question. I’m not going to further hypothesize what might or might not have led to these posts since that serves no purpose.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I expressed my opinion about both this users posts here and in two of the threads where they were made, and my opinion on what the reef2reef terms of service should be.

Rev is discussing the matter with the user in question. I’m not going to further hypothesize what might or might not have led to these posts since that serves no purpose.

Why quote me then? You could of expressed your opinion without quoting me.

 

[twentyleagues]

We’re assuming the member in question used AI, I’ve went to one of the thread shared above and read the response.

Partial quote:

3. Nutrient Levels:​

• Phosphate and Nitrate: Having a phosphate level of 0.51 can be concerning, albeit only if it has been consistently high. Torch corals, like many others, can tolerate some nitrates but can be sensitive to elevated phosphates and poor water quality, leading to rough conditions. Strive for a balanced nutrient level (around 0.03–0.1 for phosphate).
• Nutrient Dump: If you're dosing phyto at 150ml daily, analyze whether this is causing excess nutrients to accumulate. While phyto can benefit corals, high volumes might also lead to spikes in nutrients.

This is not a AI generated response to me. Ai doesn’t use abbreviations to start with.
Although we are where we are as the culture on the forum is changing and there is a movement that is asking for fact checking everything that is said. I’m from a older generation that believes in letting folks interact in discussions allow them to research the proposed fixes before implementing them, allowing discussion to happen instead of just allowing a few selected members be carriers of the truth.
This thread is a perfect example of what I’m saying, it wasn’t enough to call them out on the thread, they add to do another thread resulting in a nearly ban.

Here’s one of the threads shared

torch bailout

Good morning. Woke up this morning to my 1 year old torch one of the heads bailed out. So i fragged it. I am not sure why would that happen. Tested my water alk is 9.7 i monitor it weekly or biweekly sometimes its always been 9.5-9.7. I dose all for reef on a redsea doser. My tank is a 150G...

www.reef2reef.com

Who’s at fault here? The person that gave a good answer to a problem or the fact checkers that assumed Ai was being used and try to ridicule the user without evidence?
In my opinion we need to be kind for all users and if they thought Ai was being used there is better ways to go about it.

Obviously if rev talked to the person it was disclosed as AI or not and he would have probably stated as much if it was not.
I personally dont think AI would be all that bad. It just seems strange that someone with no idea on the subject would use it to sound as if they do know something using it. It seem obvious to many with layout and the answers themselves this is a copy and paste AI response. I am sure they didnt mean harm but still. I know a little about a lot of stupid stuff when I post answers in a forum like this I sometime fact check myself before I hit the post button if I am way off base ill delete the post but will not post the fact checked info as it may also be incorrect.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Why quote me then? You could of expressed your opinion without quoting me.

I responded to this statement of yours with comments specifically addressed to the issue you posted:

I’m just emphasising the precedent that it brings as we often use other websites in discussions. I may have to think twice before I post a link to a article from here on now.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I see a new user that is only using ChatGPT to respond to posts with coral issues.

Is this allowed? Is there a rule that prohibits someone from copying and pasting AI responses to forum questions?

Here’s a more direct question: Should I report the user or do I just let it slide? What are the rules?

I'm not really all that familiar with AI for solving aquarium issues, but I did run some basic tests to see how it fares:

Using AI Resources to Treat Fish Diseases

This is a preliminary article on using AI (ChatGPT) to diagnose and/or treat marine fish diseases.

www.reef2reef.com

My main issue is that I have a 300 page aquarium disease manuscript ready for publication, but AI may scuttle the entire project (ugh).

Jay