AI Generated Posts?

[UK Contractor Accountant]

Seen several posts starting to appear which are prefixed with "AI Generated"

I assume they are allowed on the Forums?

Note sure if they prefixed as such by the Poster or altered by the Mods?

 

[fisicx]

Usually mods adding the words. Or the whole post gets yanked.

 

[Ozzy]

I assume they are allowed on the Forums?

I'm not a fan of AI content that is pretending to be from the individual, but equally can't stop 'progress' so we only allow AI content if it is made obvious that it is AI content. Sometimes it can be useful, but if it is just someone being lazy then it's not welcome.

Any AI posts which are created that are obviously AI content and not flagged as such will get deleted.

 

[Daybooks]

I'm not a fan of AI content that is pretending to be from the individual, but equally can't stop 'progress' so we only allow AI content if it is made obvious that it is AI content. Sometimes it can be useful, but if it is just someone being lazy then it's not welcome.

Any AI posts which are created that are obviously AI content and not flagged as such will get deleted.

It would be useful to have the rules on AI generated content published in specific terms. AI generated posts I have seen recently have disappeared which is great. However these seem to be being replaced with AI generated content being personalised in order to mask the source.

Personally I would rather the forum prohibits them entirely or rules that its poster states clearly they have used AI generated content. I am not against the use of AI at all; just not on this forum.

If the poster wants to admit they are using AI generated content then that is fine I will draw my own conclusions as whether I would engage with them and trust others will equally do the same; and steer clear because you know what to expect from them at a later date.

The issue for this forum is that it devalues it. Original posters are soon going to realise they may as well use the AI generator for themselves.

 

[japancool]

I've been dealing with this on three different forums.

On one, a writers' forum, a member was giving out AI critiques to other people. Oddly enough, he got very upset and rude when I did the same to him, and got himself banned.

 

[Daybooks]

I've been dealing with this on three different forums.

On one, a writers' forum, a member was giving out AI critiques to other people. Oddly enough, he got very upset and rude when I did the same to him, and got himself banned.

There could be AI wars going on in the background without us even knowing. Then someone pulled the plug out.

 

[Baines Watson]

My Draft Input To This Thread:

I do use AI in providing responses sometimes when I feel the response can be better structured to make it easier for the end user to understand for example where the query is multi dimensional.

The starting point is always a draft response which I write and then run it through AI to refine / structure.

It saves time refining the responses which I feel is important when answering queries with muti dimensional considerations instead of providing unstructured responses which the end user may find confusing and not fully understand. The final output is always checked and amended where required before posting on the forum. That doesn't make me any less of an expert then the others on the forum or that the whole response has been AI generated without any input from me.

We are all busy individuals and if AI will save me time and provide useful information to the end user whereby they know the content has been checked by a professional before posting then I don't see what the issue is ? I don't see how it devalues this forum since as I said, it has the added layer of a professional checking the AI content before publishing which obviously the end user will not get if they did the same themselves, they will not have the same assurance about it's accuracy.

Whatever we may think of AI, it is here to stay and will be the tool majority are already using or will be using soon. Instead of resisting it we should be embracing it to get ahead of the curve in my opinion.

AI Generated Response Using My Draft Input Above:

I use AI to enhance my responses when I feel they can be better structured for clarity, particularly with multi-dimensional queries. I always start by drafting my own response, and then use AI to refine and organize the content to make it more understandable for the end user.

This process saves time, which is crucial when handling complex questions. However, I want to stress that the final response is always checked and amended by me before posting. The AI is simply a tool to assist with structure and flow, not a substitute for my expertise.

Using AI doesn’t make me any less qualified than others on the forum. If anything, it helps me provide clearer, more effective responses, while ensuring the accuracy and professionalism that the end user expects. The key difference is that my responses are reviewed and verified by a professional, which wouldn’t be the case if users relied solely on AI themselves.

AI is here to stay, and rather than devaluing the forum, I believe it can be a valuable asset when used responsibly. Embracing AI allows us to work more efficiently and stay ahead of the curve, while still delivering high-quality, trustworthy advice.

 

[Ozzy]

There’s not a lot in it between the two but I did prefer the first response over the second. It read my sincere where the second had an element of corporate policy statement sort of tone in it.

 

[japancool]

That doesn't make me any less of an expert then the others on the forum or that the whole response has been AI generated without any input from me.

Maybe not, but if I run your content through an AI checker and it comes back positive, I'm going to question why you needed to use an AI to generate it in the first place. Did you not know the answers and need an AI to provide them? It's going to make me instantly suspicious and less likely to engage your services, especially if the response looks 100% AI generated.

You say it saves time, but it would have saved you more time by just posting your first draft. The people here are generally intelligent and don't need an AI to "simplify" or "clarify" things for them.

 

[fisicx]

@Baines Watson - one of the problems with using AI is verbosity. It churns out multiple paragraphs where a shorter summary will often suffice. You say AI will save you time but it wastes my time having to read 200 words that could have been 20.

 

[cjd]

I don't want to read AI generated material here unless it's identified as such.

I want to know that I'm dealing with a real human being with a real personality that I can identify with and have feelings about - trust, dislike, disagreement, admiration etc ie a human that over time I can think I know.

I don't see the point of coming to a forum to discuss life the universe and everything only to get formulaic responses I could have generated myself from AI.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Well it scares business people away from AI as these people generate absolute tripe and it proves it does not work

I will not be using AI and my lack of education will continue to be demonstrated everyday on here with spelling mistakes and punctuation errors on an industrial scale

 

[fisicx]

It’s also worth noting that websites publishing AI generated content are losing their search engine ranking and getting fewer conversions. People aren’t stupid, they can usually spot AI content.

 

[Daybooks]

Seen several posts starting to appear which are prefixed with "AI Generated"

I assume they are allowed on the Forums?

Note sure if they prefixed as such by the Poster or

There’s not a lot in it between the two but I did prefer the first response over the second. It read my sincere where the second had an element of corporate policy statement sort of tone in it.

I agree the first sounds better. It is a reader's prerogative as to whether they believe either.

 

[Ian J]

People aren’t stupid, they can usually spot AI content.

I must be the exception then as I've never spotted any

 

[DontAsk]

I must be the exception then as I've never spotted any

I though Baines Watsons recent posts were glaringly obvious, but assumed they were not, as they had been allowed through. Now I'm chuffed I spotted them.

 

[cjd]

They're usually very easy to spot if it's pure generation but you can always check

AI Detector - Trusted AI Checker for ChatGPT, GPT5 & Gemini

AI Content Detector and ChatGPT Detector, simple way with High Accuracy. AI Checker & AI Detector Free for AI GPT Plagiarism by ZeroGPT.

www.zerogpt.com

It's harder if original text is then run through AI to 'improve' it.

 

[Ozzy]

That's it, I'm officially a bot .
The article I just published had two paragraphs I wrote entirely by hand with no AI input identified as AI generated. To be fair, much of the rest of it which was pumped through two AI generators for tuning was picked up correctly.

 

[fisicx]

Because the AI generated content is pulling phrases from the LLM whilst grammatically correct (most of the time) it’s bland, boring and corporate speak. Even with human adjustments it just reads wrong. Even worse, it is wrong. Start asking ChatGPT about marketing and SEO and you get incorrect drivel. I’d put money on it getting invoice factoring wrong as well @Ian J.

 

[Daybooks]

That's it, I'm officially a bot .

I had my suspicions.

 

[Daybooks]

Well it scares business people away from AI as these people generate absolute tripe and it proves it does not work

I will not be using AI and my lack of education will continue to be demonstrated everyday on here with spelling mistakes and punctuation errors on an industrial scale

Full stop to that!

 

[Baines Watson]

Maybe not, but if I run your content through an AI checker and it comes back positive, I'm going to question why you needed to use an AI to generate it in the first place. Did you not know the answers and need an AI to provide them? It's going to make me instantly suspicious and less likely to engage your services, especially if the response looks 100% AI generated.

You say it saves time, but it would have saved you more time by just posting your first draft. The people here are generally intelligent and don't need an AI to "simplify" or "clarify" things for them.

I think you have proved my point already, my statement above says that I use AI to make the content easy to read by refining / restructuring it, not to double check the content itself and yet despite reading it you are saying that I use it to check the content which isn't mentioned anywhere in my post!

If a clear statement like this does not get picked up by 'intelligent' individuals on here then clearly there is a need to simplify content where possible so the points being made are clear for understanding, I could spend time to do that, time which I am already short of or I can use AI to do that for me, I know which is the smart decision in that situation, a smart 'human' decision!

I don't see AI as a substitute for what I do, it will never be one as it can only be as smart as the data that it is trained on whereas humans can make the judgment calls that AI can't and that is where the real expertise lies.

 

[Baines Watson]

@Baines Watson - one of the problems with using AI is verbosity. It churns out multiple paragraphs where a shorter summary will often suffice. You say AI will save you time but it wastes my time having to read 200 words that could have been 20.

It depends on how you use your prompt, it can summarize text whilst keeping the arguments intact, my two examples above are case in point, my verison = 269 words, AI version = 196 words, saves you 73 words reading time

I don't see AI as a threat, it's an opportunity, I guess most people on here do not share that view.

 

[Ozzy]

I don't see AI as a threat, it's an opportunity, I guess most people on here do not share that view.

I agree that it is a great tool, and I use it myself. My opinion specifically for the forums is that I want to have people communicating with people, and the opinions and advice are based on the individuals knowledge and experience.

The challenge/risk UKBF has is where people will get ChatGPT/etc to write a reply to a question on here and the individual posts it as gospel and their advice pretending to be an expert in that field. The reader than heeds that advice as based on someone else's experience, and builds trust in said individual based on a lie. I'm not implying that is your actions, I am stating that is what I am fighting against on here and aim to avoid which is why I have the rules around AI as I do. Great and feel free to use as a tool to optimise a response, correct gramma and whatever, but where someone just does a cut-paste from ChatGPT I ask the mods to zap them.

 

[japancool]

I think you have proved my point already, my statement above says that I use AI to make the content easy to read by refining / restructuring it, not to double check the content itself and yet despite reading it you are saying that I use it to check the content which isn't mentioned anywhere in my post!

No, I said I used an AI checker to check the contents of your posts, and it leaves me questioning your competence. I don't know or care why you use it. As the person who reads the post, it leaves me questioning your competence because I will ascribe motives to it myself. I'm not going to give you a chance to explain because, if I was a prospective client, you've already lost my confidence.

I'm telling you how it looks from the other side. If you don't want to take that on board, that's absolutely fine. It impacts you, not me.

 

[fisicx]

It depends on how you use your prompt, it can summarize text whilst keeping the arguments intact, my two examples above are case in point, my verison = 269 words, AI version = 196 words, saves you 73 words reading time

Run your prompt again and ask for a short forum reply. Properly summarised your post could have been very much shorter. People may have missed some nuance in your post because is was way too verbose.

I don't see AI as a threat, it's an opportunity, I guess most people on here do not share that view.

Yes, it does have it's uses. But less so on a forum when people expect to read your answer not one that ChatGPT churns out.

There have been any number of (now deleted) posts on UKBF where the member has posted incorrect or misleading advice generated using an AI tool.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

I don't see AI as a threat, it's an opportunity, I guess most people on here do not share that view.

Despite my old fashionedness I also believe that AI is an opportunity but only for the right applications

If anybody believes that there is a place for them on these forums then they are probably consuming the finest class A import

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Despite my old fashionedness I also believe that AI is an opportunity but only for the right applications

Agreed..........like turning into a Limerick?

Though I’m old-fashioned, it’s clear,
AI’s got some uses, I hear.
But for it to shine,
It’s got to align,
With the right kind of task, that’s sincere!

 

[Baines Watson]

I agree that it is a great tool, and I use it myself. My opinion specifically for the forums is that I want to have people communicating with people, and the opinions and advice are based on the individuals knowledge and experience.

The challenge/risk UKBF has is where people will get ChatGPT/etc to write a reply to a question on here and the individual posts it as gospel and their advice pretending to be an expert in that field. The reader than heeds that advice as based on someone else's experience, and builds trust in said individual based on a lie. I'm not implying that is your actions, I am stating that is what I am fighting against on here and aim to avoid which is why I have the rules around AI as I do. Great and feel free to use as a tool to optimise a response, correct gramma and whatever, but where someone just does a cut-paste from ChatGPT I ask the mods to zap them.

Totally agree, I believe in responsible use of AI myself, after all it is my firm's name being published here with that response hence the risk is mine as well hence I make sure that any content published is in line with my expertise / experience on the topic before posting.

 

[Baines Watson]

Run your prompt again and ask for a short forum reply. Properly summarised your post could have been very much shorter. People may have missed some nuance in your post because is was way too verbose.

Yes, it does have it's uses. But less so on a forum when people expect to read your answer not one that ChatGPT churns out.

There have been any number of (now deleted) posts on UKBF where the member has posted incorrect or misleading advice generated using an AI tool.

Thanks for that, will try that next time.

I think I have already explained that the answer is mine, AI is simply a tool for refinement not the source, have demonstrated it with the example above as well but it seems it still leaves room for doubt.

That may be the case but the member could also post incorrect or misleading advice without using an AI tool as well, have seen a few examples of that too, using an AI tool doesn't automatically mean the advice is incorrect or misleading.

 

[Baines Watson]

No, I said I used an AI checker to check the contents of your posts, and it leaves me questioning your competence. I don't know or care why you use it. As the person who reads the post, it leaves me questioning your competence because I will ascribe motives to it myself. I'm not going to give you a chance to explain because, if I was a prospective client, you've already lost my confidence.

I'm telling you how it looks from the other side. If you don't want to take that on board, that's absolutely fine. It impacts you, not me.

I do see it and I don't intend to explain anything further either then what I already have (too much time has been taken up already)

Appreciate the feedback.

 

[DontAsk]

They're usually very easy to spot if it's pure generation but you can always check

AI Detector - Trusted AI Checker for ChatGPT, GPT5 & Gemini

AI Content Detector and ChatGPT Detector, simple way with High Accuracy. AI Checker & AI Detector Free for AI GPT Plagiarism by ZeroGPT.

www.zerogpt.com

It's harder if original text is then run through AI to 'improve' it.

AI checkers have been shown to be as much use as a pile of male cow excrement. Far too many false positives and no real explanation of why they think something is AI generated.

 

[fisicx]

I think I have already explained that the answer is mine, AI is simply a tool for refinement not the source, have demonstrated it with the example above as well but it seems it still leaves room for doubt.

Or just don’t use the AI tool and post you answer warts and all.

 

[wayzgoose]

It’s also worth noting that websites publishing AI generated content are losing their search engine ranking and getting fewer conversions. People aren’t stupid, they can usually spot AI content.

and they usually start with "Elevate your . . . . "

 

[cjd]

The ones I've been able to spot have been very easy to spot - they're just so, well, wet and lacking in personality. But of course, if there were really good ones, we wouldn't know.

 

[japancool]

If you're unsure, I find this one useful:

AI Detector - Free AI Checker for ChatGPT, GPT-5, Gemini & More

Try AI Detector by Copyleaks for unmatched accuracy across all LLMs including ChatGPT, GPT-5 & Gemini.

copyleaks.com