Many/Most people here, myself included, aren’t interested in AI written answers, for a variety of reasons.
Personally, when I see a post that was written by AI, I skim right past it. I’m not wasting my time reading something that may well be incorrect.
Also, personally, I wouldn’t be against a rule that required posters to make it blindingly obvious when their post was written/‘researched’ by AI. I know people generally mention it, ie ‘I asked ChatGPT…’, but I think it should be more obvious than that. Something more along the lines of it being required, for example, to be in a quote box with blue text or maybe collapsed (‘hide details’) with something explaining it. Similar to how mods collapse posts that are unrelated to the thread when they’re trying to get things back on track.
Also, I think, at the very least, the poster should be posting the links to wherever the bot got it’s data from, if they’re provided.
While this is the pit, so standards are considerably lower, in your case you asked it a semi-medical question and I think if you want a real answer, you should be looking at real sources, not that. When I put that same question into google, Gemini gave me a similar AI answer, but provided links to nhs dot uk, the mayo clinic, the international OCD foundation and a few others, that’s on top of the results you’d expect google to provide. Most any of those are probably better than the AI slop you cut and pasted and they’re absolutely more trustworthy.
To be clear, I’m not saying an AI answer is necessarily wrong, I’m saying I don’t know that it’s right. In my opinion, an AI answer carries about as much weight (or maybe a bit less) as an uncited answer from a random poster. In either case, if I wanted to springboard off that answer, I’d have to go find cites anyways.
Again, to be fair, this is the pit, not FQ or one of the more cite oriented areas of the board, but a lot of us here are uninterested in AI answers. AI to help find sources, sure, but AI answers, not so much.