Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Blog

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Clarifying Codidact's position on AI-generated content

Post

Clarifying Codidact's position on AI-generated content

+63
−1

Given recent controversies on various platforms involving AI-generated content, which have resulted in some attention being directed towards our platform, we wanted to clarify where we stand when it comes to this issue.

Presenting AI-generated content as your own work is a violation of our policies by every measure.
Presenting any non-original work as if it were your own is first and foremost plagiarism. If you are copying from somewhere else, you must provide proper attribution and respect the license or copyright of the work.

Our platform is designed to be a place where communities can host high-quality, peer-reviewed information. AI-generated content is neither of those. It is known for "hallucinating" facts, and often misrepresents information in subtle ways that often go unnoticed by those not experts in the subject matter. Its output cannot be trusted, and using it to generate information risks spreading misinformation and entirely fictitious sources.

From our point of view, the use of AI-generated content, particularly Large Language Model (LLM) generated content, constitutes an abuse of the platform, and moderators are empowered to remove such content and issue warnings as they see fit. The Community Team is available to provide support and guidance, and to review any cases where there's doubt as to if it's actually AI-generated or not.

Of course, while this is where the Codidact Team stands on this issue, any community on our network or using our platform is welcome to determine for themselves what their position is on this issue. If your community decides that actually AI-generated answers are your cup of tea, that's your prerogative, as long as proper attribution is given. But the default policy that is in place unless a community decides otherwise is that LLM- and AI-generated content, by themselves, are not considered acceptable to post as questions, answers, articles, or otherwise on our platform.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

3 comment threads

Self-hosting, licence, proper citation (2 comments)
Citing and linking to ChatGPT a violation too? (4 comments)
Questions about generating content? (4 comments)
Citing and linking to ChatGPT a violation too?
Matthias Braun‭ wrote 11 months ago

From your announcement I assume that citing or linking to AI-generated content is not allowed, too. Let's say an answer or comment contains: "Here's an explanation of the command by ChatGPT: ...". That's prohibited as well, right?

Mithical‭ wrote 11 months ago

We're not here to be an intermediary between people and AI, Matthias Braun‭. If someone wanted to ask an AI they can do that directly. At a bare minimum, I'd expect someone to verify an answer that was generated from somewhere and include that verification in the answer.

BryanH‭ wrote 11 months ago

Even better to avoid the whole mess, just like in school, if you're not going to attribute it then rewrite it in your own words.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote 11 months ago

If you post something without attribution, then you're representing that material -- ChatGPT's output in this case, but the same principle applies if you copied from Wikipedia or a blog or product documentation -- as your own work and that's a problem of both ethics and theft (plagiarism). Things that look like your own work need to actually be your own work, just like in school as you said. Text taken from elsewhere should be formatted as a quote and attributed (say where you got it).