AI-content on F1-TECHNICAL

[dren]

I think we should ask ChatGPT what we should do.

Gemini and Grok are probably better

lol I don't use any of them. I do like whatever AI enhancements have been made to google searches. It's saved me a lot of time not having to pour through regulations related to my field of work.

[dren]

Some one posted an article from a reputable website that had LLM-sounding text. It may be leaking into journalism and other forms of writing. No surprise if it has.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is already an overwhelmingly large percentage of articles out there.

[AR3-GP]

There are quite a few F1 news sites which are almost entirely LLM generated. I think the tool is not a negative thing, but when the content is rubbish then it detracts from the forum.

The best way to present it in the forum is to acknowledge that an idea is AI generated and to discuss why you think it is correct or not.

[vorticism]

Clickbait and sensationalism are nothing new. I suppose a concern is that AI stands to create 1000x more of it.

[Greg Locock]

Many ESL writers use AI to clean up their contributions. This makes it harder to detect the difference between AI generated content and AI spell/grammar/flow checked content. I have no idea how to solve that one. Whatever the outcome I think we should ban AI generated content.

[AR3-GP]

Many ESL writers use AI to clean up their contributions. This makes it harder to detect the difference between AI generated content and AI spell/grammar/flow checked content. I have no idea how to solve that one. Whatever the outcome I think we should ban AI generated content.

I think that sells AI content short. It's not always a negative thing. It can be a discussion starter in some cases where the forum lacks answers. What we should seek to ban is "bad content", not "ai-content".

For example, sharing "leaked photos" which are AI generated shouldn't be permitted. However, if someone is thinking about a geometry for a wing and they use AI to generate an image that better illustrated the concept? I see no harm in AI being used that way. Illustrations can be used to clarify ideas.

[Richard C]

Many ESL writers use AI to clean up their contributions. This makes it harder to detect the difference between AI generated content and AI spell/grammar/flow checked content. I have no idea how to solve that one. Whatever the outcome I think we should ban AI generated content.

I think that sells AI content short. It's not always a negative thing. It can be a discussion starter in some cases where the forum lacks answers. What we should seek to ban is "bad content", not "ai-content".

For example, sharing "leaked photos" which are AI generated shouldn't be permitted. However, if someone is thinking about a geometry for a wing and they use AI to generate an image that better illustrated the concept? I see no harm in AI being used that way. Illustrations can be used to clarify ideas.

100% It's usage can be helpful. It's not all bad. But the issue is that given some of the generative content can look very real, we should not pass off that content "as real". A blanket ban will result in technical topics in F1 that we would not be allowed to discuss. What is needed is proper attribution/labelling and penalties for repeat offenders who's goal is to sow confusion, misinformation, etc.

I also think we should not get hung up on proper terminology around how to label it. It seems the world has decided to call it "AI" regardless of what it is, or what subclass it is (LLM, NLP, OCR, traditional ML, Generative, Agentic, etc.)

Richard

[Greg Locock]

"A blanket ban will result in technical topics in F1 that we would not be allowed to discuss" How come?

[catent]

Many ESL writers use AI to clean up their contributions. This makes it harder to detect the difference between AI generated content and AI spell/grammar/flow checked content. I have no idea how to solve that one. Whatever the outcome I think we should ban AI generated content.

What we should seek to ban is "bad content", not "ai-content".

100% agreed. Well said.

[Richard C]

"A blanket ban will result in technical topics in F1 that we would not be allowed to discuss" How come?

Two off the cuff examples...

1. If teams use AI somehow in their design process.
2. AI generated or modified content (such as testing, or otherwise) become a "topic" within the F1 space.

In both examples... if there is a blanket ban, both topics just would not exist here. And both "should" be valid topics. We should be able to talk about and even show images or other content around AI centric content. Even if the discussion is to disprove or call out the content as invalid.

The first example is hypothetical, but who knows, maybe someone can give a concrete example today. The second has a recent example being the Audi shakedown/media day. Images were posted that showed a detailed view of the car. But... those were "cleaned up" by AI and this resulted in a fantasy image that was not real. Showing a side by side of original and AI photo would be valid to say "look, here is the original and this is an AI photo based upon the original and is not real". But with a ban, the image couldn't be shown and depending upon how strict the ban, maybe not even discussed.

To repeat what I have said earlier... I don't think it should also be blanketly allowed. If content is AI generated, it should be labelled as such as a "warning" for the viewer. So we can understand what is real and what might be fantasy. What is not acceptable is fantasy presented as fact.

Richard

[Greg Locock]

Why would content about AI be banned? It doesn't have to be written by AI. Agree about the image one, just flag the image as AI slop for comparison purposes.

[AR3-GP]

I think in some cases people are not aware that an image has been AI altered. This in of itself is a skill. In theory one could grant moderation privileges to an AI agent and see what the forum looks like afterwards...

[Richard C]

Why would content about AI be banned? It doesn't have to be written by AI. Agree about the image one, just flag the image as AI slop for comparison purposes.

Then maybe we are more aligned than not. I am saying... Not banned, but not welcome.

Richard

[Jaymz]

I wonder if there is a way to make pasting text impossible? Or of there is a way to let us know that a message has been pasted?

[maxxer]

An LLM correcting a text’s style is not going to make stuff up. Similarly, an LLM summarizing a long text should not need to make stuff up.

But an LLM expanding a prompt or answering a question can and will make stuff up. Differently at different times. This is easy to test, they made my soccer team win the Spanish cup, twice, in different ways, down to the minute of the 3 goals in the final, scored by players with ages differing by 50 years.

So your suggested dyslexic scenario is a “legit” and useful usage case. As is a grammar-style check-improvement. The latter is as lazy as it is disrespectful of other’s time, IMO.

A very good point on how an automatic AI checker might fail, other than it being unreliable.

Totally agree let's just stop calling it AI and call it LLM. So far it has not done anything AI yet.
It is just fed by LLM and that is the base of the garberge it puts out. Ask AI to make a train and comes from whatever it was fed with before not because of the AI designing a train from scratch.

Real AI wouldn't need such a lot of data centers scrapping through the internet and being fed llm.
It is not AI it is all just data which is provided by humans so far.