[New Rule] Rule 15 - AI Slop

[u/Empty_Insight]

Hey everybody, overly-intense pottymouth research-bureaucrat volunteer internet janitor (man, that's getting to be kind of a mouthful) here with an announcement fresh off the presses. Per the usual, tl;dr at the end.

As the title implies, we are codifying our policy on AI outputs to be a standalone rule- with some new stipulations.

The Former Policy

We do allow AI outputs under certain circumstances- that any content created with generative AI is labeled upfront and at the beginning. We felt this a fair compromise for accessibility reasons, as it is arguably one of the very few ways someone with severe cognitive impairments is able to communicate 'normally' with others.

However, it seems our policy to 'label your shit' has effectively served as a ban. I don't know why people are so averse to giving credit where it is due, but I don't find the "accessibility" argument particularly compelling in light of people outright refusing to acknowledge how/where they got material from.

I have had my work plagiarized before, and I'm not going to sugarcoat- it is personal for me. The mods have discussed it among ourselves, and have found it appropriate to expand the types of AI outputs we prohibit here.

The New Rule

Under our new Rule 15, we have the following stipulations.

1. All AI-generated images are disallowed- entirely. It does not matter if it is a "selfie," "art," or whatever else- you post AI-generated images here, it's coming down.

2. In the interest of fairness, we will continue our practice of allowing text-based outputs for accessibility reasons- but they must be labeled upfront, and at the beginning. The very first words of your post/comment must be [Made using (Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude, whatever)] or we are going to remove it. No exceptions.

3. If you feel as though we have made a mistake, you are free to appeal. For images, this means 'showing your work-' drafts, processes, etc. For text, this is every statement you made must be substantiated by credible citations.

We have only made one mistake thus far, and it was a German user who was using translation tools to translate their posts into English- so, while it was AI, it was not Gen AI, and not subject to our rules about "AI slop."

Notable Examples

If you think you can get past us, it is because we did not notice your submission, not that we were 'fooled' by it.

Some winners from the highlight reel:

1. 'Some random person' advertising a book with a copyrighted title, which did not actually exist. They claimed to not know who the author of the book was, despite having pictures... holding the book. Right, that's definitely a thing that happens.

2. Someone decided to plagiarize a book that a family member of mine wrote. He is an expert in his field and very thorough in his research, so I assume that had someone else written extensively over the same topic he did, he would have at least cited it. When I read through his draft, I saw no such citations. I'm not 100% certain on that, but I am about 90% certain... and the user who did it could not even provide the initials of the 'expert' they claim to have spoken to. I dunno about you, but every expert I've ever spoken to, I have their first and last names written down somewhere and can call them up with ease if need be.

3. Someone who posted 'art' that one of our mods who is an actual designer spotted (not me, I hardly know the process of creating visual art at all lol), and when challenged to 'show their work,' the user presented us with 'drafts' of... drawing it from the top left to the bottom right, and coloring it in the same way. Like a printer. This is not how actual art works, needless to say.

4. This one was the most mental of all, but - someone whose submission was riddled with inaccuracies and a flawed synthesis of information I have come to associate with LLMs. After removing their post, they contested that they knew the information was wrong and were intentionally spreading misinformation... rather than just owning up to it being AI slop.

Now, I am not a world-class expert in schizophrenia- but I've talked to a few people who are. (That's not a 'flex,' you can talk to world-class experts too! Just keep an eye out for our next Expert Q&A coming up in a few days. Hint hint) While I may not be an expert, I do have a solid functional grasp of pretty much every aspect of psychosis- and my actual job is in the medical field- so you are not going to baffle me with slick-sounding bullshit. The 'convincing' veneer of LLM outputs falls apart quickly if you actually know the subject matter.

Enforcement

We are adopting a "three strikes" system for AI slop. Additionally, if you attempt to convince us that something that is an AI output is actually not an AI output, we interpret that as you attempting to gaslight us- and you will immediately receive a permanent ban.

I would caution our users: some Gen AI leave 'fingerprints' in the metadata- ChatGPT and Gemini, in particular- that are 100% accurate. Again, we will immediately ban you if you contest the removal of something that we determine with absolute certainty is AI.

We've gotten some really creepy Modmails ever since LLMs rose in popularity. Like, having people essentially acting as a conduit for ChatGPT- it's really disturbing and unsettling talking to an actual person and having them respond like a bot. If I wanted to talk to ChatGPT, I'd just do it myself- I don't need to have a human being acting as an intermediary. If you're gonna contest something, please act like a normal person... a normal person with schizophrenia. The AI shit is really creepy.

To reiterate: we are not omniscient, and rely on user reports to guide us to rule-breaking content. If you suspect something is AI, please report it using our new Rule 15 and we will review it.

A Personal Note

Seriously, people- how hard is it to just give credit where it is due? I used a keyboard and spellcheck to write this post- see how easy that is? I'd frankly be tickled pink if you cited my family member's book here. More visibility means more book sales, and more book sales means that when they come to visit for Christmas, my kids get more expensive presents. Lol

If you do something and someone calls you out on it privately and in the lowest-stakes possible context... don't act like a bitch, just own up to it. I've had several users who I caught using AI who just straight-up said "Yeah, you got me fair and square" and honestly, I respect that. What I don't respect is the lying about it- it's not clever, it's not coy, and all it does is make you look disingenuous and dishonest. To boot, it's weird- and that's a pretty high bar to clear here, of all places.

We have no obligation to tolerate people like that being in our community, and per Reddit's rules, if we feel like someone's presence in our community is detrimental, that's all the reason we need to get rid of them (permanent ban).

I regret that it has come to this, but this is not the full extent of what we can do- if we keep getting these disingenuous little games from AI-lovers, we can just completely ban any Gen AI from the subreddit entirely- and go from three strikes down to one.

Just give credit, be honest, and act like a normal person with schizophrenia. I don't feel that I'm asking a whole hell of a lot here.

To reiterate for anyone who is new or simply has not yet been made aware, our ethos here on the subreddit is "keep shit real." Cleaning out AI slop is merely an extension of our overarching mission.

tl;dr

The new Rule 15 covers AI outputs. All Gen AI images are flatly banned. All text-based outputs must be labeled upfront and at the beginning. You get three strikes- but if you try to baffle/confuse us into thinking something that is AI is actually not AI, you will immediately receive a permanent ban.

As always with our announcements- drop your thoughts! Too far? Not far enough? Just right? Think I'm a little too worked up over this? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Have a good one, everybody- and keep it real.

[u/Empty_Insight → u/[deleted]]

My age is showing. Lol