It is definitely marked, whether it’s “clear” depends on the individual and how quickly they’re reading. If I see a really long post, I might skim it to see if it’s worth reading in depth, and in that case I might miss where it says “I asked ChatGPT” at the top.
In general, following some standards makes things easier for everyone. There is a poster here who insists on formatting quoted text with italics instead of inside a quote box, and it always takes me a couple beats to figure out which words are his and what he’s quoting. Having some gentle guidance for how to format AI quotes is IMO better than a generic “clearly marked.”
It absolutely should be this. I come here to read posts by people and do want to have to see AI results. If I wanted to know what any of those AI tools had to say, I’d use them myself.
AI is anathema to the Straight Dope. The more we can marginalize it, the better. I like to at least pretend people are being thoughtful about what they post.
In all fairness, the post itself was my commentary on a ChatGPT quote that could just as easily have been an excerpt from Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, or any other reference source and was indicated as such.
Quote box would have been better, but I didn’t think of it at the time.
Personally I don’t normally use AI for posts and don’t see a point unless the intent is to discuss the output for some reason or another.
AI is a big part of our society, it’s just going to become more prevalent over time whether people like it or not, and it’s going to be a discussion topic.
I would expect so. However, I think the intent is to firmly distinguish between AI generated reference material and using AI to generate your actual posts and passing it off as your own words.
If people wanted to engage in a conversation with AI instead of humans, they can go right to ChatGPT’s site.
Agreed, so I support the idea of including AI-generated content when talking about AI, but not using it in place of a real post. Essentially, I support all you’re saying here.
Any significant content from a source that is not the poster themselves, should be formatted in a way that it’s obviously not the poster’s own work.
Whether that’s an official rule or just a suggestion is up to the mods. The post linked to above should not have earned a warning, but a mod note to format better.
Oh, just to be clear I wasn’t taking issue with your action - I was giving you fair credit that despite not being clear with the rule I cited, you made a fair, good-faith effort to credit that it was AI work. Yes, would additional formatting make it more clear? Sure. Which is why I supported a “best practices” option as a partial solution going forward. At most, per @Atamasama
Is how I would have handled it in one of the forums I was responsible for. Unless it became an ongoing issue of course.