Stance of the sub regarding serious discussions as well as AI content

 

I'd like to raise those two topics.

 

---

The first one is actually a question: What is the stance on artificially generated content?

There has been and increasing number of comments written by ChatGPT or similar engines. The main issue with that is that these apps more often than not output false content, and almost always pull information out of nowhere – i.e. no texts are quoted, and sometimes content is made up as if it was real ( example:.

If there is an agreed position regarding this kind of content it would be good if it were made clear for everyone.

 

---

The second topic is a suggestion and a criticism. There is a tag for "Stoic Theory/Study", and the sub rules state that users commenting in the threads placed under it must engage in longform content.

That means there must be strict enforcement of references to the answers written (e.g. "Epictetus, Enchiridion 1" and not just "The Stoics believed"), as well as a constructive line of commenting (e.g. instead of rude replies or sarcastic oneliners).

That's not what is going on, which is the point I wanted to bring up. Aside from enforcement of the rules and removal of all comments that don't comply, I don't know what exactly should be done for that tag to be meaningful.

One possible alternative is r/askphilosophy's way. That sub has similar worries and in their case only flaired users can make primary-level comments (askphilosophy's flairs indicate level of involvement, are anonymous, and are mostly based on the quality of one's previous posts).

r/askscience has a similar system, but it's more structured and also stricter (e.g. here.

Neither of those subs require IDs or real-life information.

In either case, the flairs indicate that those people are regular mid-to-high-quality commenters who can be relied upon for information regarding their areas of expertise (and this doesn't mean they are allowed to write stuff without referring to the sources).

 

If a flair system isn't feasible or desirable, r/stoicism could at the very least provide an auto-comment describing the expected behaviour under each tag. Maybe something like this: "This user has tagged their post as Stoic Theory/Study. This means all comments in this thread must be well-researched and offer references to Stoic texts or to published studies. Vague references, broad generalizations, and categorical statements do not fit the nature of this tag. Furthermore, since the focus is discussion, up- and downvotes are disabled for this tag." .

 

Why is that necessary? I don't know, since I don't know what the reasoning was behind the creation of the Stoic Theory/Study tag. But I assume, like happens in r/askphilosophy, that these kinds of threads would be opportunities for a more focused exchange between those who have been involved with Stoic studies for some time and at some depth. It could also serve as a standard reference links to dispel the recurring misunderstandings of the "New to Stoicism" and "Stoic advice" tags.

 

Currently, as things are, I don't see a difference between "Stoic Theory", "Stoic Meditation", and "Quote Reflection".

If that's how it's suppose to be, then it doesn't make much sense to keep three different categories. And if that's not how it should be, then maybe mods should consider making each of those tags more meaningful.