Timeline for Users using AI to write lots of answers
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 29 at 8:42 | vote | accept | gmvh | ||
| Sep 28 at 20:45 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 29 at 22:38 | |||||
| Jul 15 at 18:19 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 20 at 3:01 | |||||
| Jun 1 at 18:26 | answer | added | Will Sawin | timeline score: 12 | |
| May 31 at 17:00 | comment | added | Roland Bacher | @gmvh Sorry, I meant it as a joke. | |
| May 31 at 10:10 | comment | added | gmvh | @RolandBacher: what makes you think that? I can assure you that I had no AI help in formulating this question. (I did post an AI-generated answer, as requested by YCor - in fact, I got a ChatGPT-account just for this purpose - but this was poorly received and deleted). | |
| May 30 at 1:35 | comment | added | Roland Bacher | @YCor : No, but perhaps the question was AI-generated. | |
| May 26 at 1:44 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | @ChristianRemling In at least one case where an answer was flagged as possibly AI, I had to look hard and say "even if it were, this actually seems to hold up", and so the answer passed the Turing test as far as I was concerned. But in all cases I've seen where I was sure it was AI, there has consistently been a fly in the ointment. That may change. | |
| May 24 at 0:30 | comment | added | YCor | Could we have an AI-generated answer to this one? :) | |
| May 23 at 14:28 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @YemonChoi You have probably studied such things more closely than I have, but what you say is consistent with my own experience. In any case, it seems that nothing you say contradicts what I said. The answers you are describing don't "truly make good sense," so it's not too hard to figure out that they are AI-generated, and should be flagged and removed, even if some user is bamboozled into accepting it. | |
| May 23 at 14:14 | history | edited | gmvh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| May 23 at 13:49 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @SamHopkins Presumably the experiment is to see if they can goad me into apoplexy. | |
| May 23 at 13:48 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | "Apes don't read philosophy." "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it." | |
| May 23 at 13:47 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @TimothyChow I don't know how closely you have been monitoring the deleted answers, but all the cases that I have seen and in some cases flagged involve "bullshitting with high powered language". That is, the answer will locally look impressive because it correctly states something about the Hodge-de Rham spectral sequence or a du Val singularity or something, but on inspection this has little or nothing to do with the question, and is applied incorrectly. The Boris Johnson approach, if you will | |
| May 23 at 12:29 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @gmvh If an answer truly makes good sense then I don't know how one can be sure that it is AI-generated. In any case, I don't see why we should take action against good, sensible answers, regardless of their origin (unless maybe the question is so elementary as to be inappropriate for MO). On the other hand, I agree with Christian Remling and Gerry Myerson that just because an answer is highly upvoted or even accepted, it could still be gibberish. Gibberish should be flagged even if it is an accepted answer. | |
| May 23 at 11:12 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | @gmvh, if you have never seen a user so confused as to accept a nonsensical answer, you've been lucky. | |
| May 23 at 8:52 | comment | added | gmvh | @ChristianRemling I always assume that an accept means the answer satisfied the asker, and thus presumably was understandable to them ... why would one accept gibberish? | |
| May 22 at 19:32 | comment | converted from answer | Ethan Splaver | Can I see which account this is? I'm currious as I've not seen any model with a good success rate on here or MSE. Try running the first 3 pages through any LLM - I guarantee you it will have at least a 95% failure rate. The future of research, I assume AI will eventually replace but not LLMs. | |
| May 22 at 17:39 | comment | added | Christian Remling | Are you sure that there have been AI generated answers on this site that actually made sense? I haven't seen any, though of course my perspective is limited. In any event, upvotes or acceptance seem insufficient evidence for the quality of an answer (I do remember some upvoted and/or accepted AI answers that were complete gibberish). | |
| May 22 at 15:37 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | @AndyPutman Yes, it's the same user. I think in such cases you should act on your suspicions anyway -- thanks for asking. | |
| May 22 at 15:11 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @ToddTrimble: I noticed that one obviously chatbot-generated answer from a user posing as the founder of a major software company was deleted, but several other answers were not deleted. I do not work in the fields of those other answers, so I can't judge whether they should be flagged or not (but I am suspicious). | |
| May 22 at 13:59 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | This is pure speculation, but I wonder if someone is running some kind of experiment on MO with these accounts. | |
| May 22 at 12:15 | history | became hot meta post | |||
| May 22 at 11:18 | answer | added | gmvh | timeline score: 23 | |
| May 22 at 8:18 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | Maybe this discussion is a bit related: ChatGPT strikes MathOverflow? | |
| May 22 at 7:44 | history | asked | gmvh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |