Ethics of using a chatbot for forum posts [Poll]

Is it ethical to use a chatbot to make forum posts for you?

  • Yes

  • It depends on how the chatbot is used

  • If the use of the chatbot is disclosed, it's ethical

  • No

  • It may be ethical, but I sure find it annoying when other forum users use them


Results are only viewable after voting.

linux.poet

Electric Nightfall
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Apr 25, 2022
2,046
1,005
Poway
✟196,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Personally, I'm inclined to think that it is dishonest, unless said use is disclosed. Also, Christianity affects humans, not robots, so I'm not sure taking ChatGPT's input on it is the most useful idea.

This is not connected with any sort of moderation decision, I'm just interested to hear what people think. Everything I say here does not reflect the opinions of the moderators or admins, and merely reflects my personal opinion.
 
D
Danielgeree
Its not clear to me why you think that the goal of improving your life is not ALSO a life philosophy. You can certainly make your daily choices based on the question: "Which decision is likely to make my life better, and to what degree?"

P.S. Шлюхи Перми
Шлюхи Твери - putanytveri.com
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Personally, I'm inclined to think that it is dishonest, unless said use is disclosed. Also, Christianity affects humans, not robots, so I'm not sure taking ChatGPT's input on it is the most useful idea.

This is not connected with any sort of moderation decision, I'm just interested to hear what people think. Everything I say here does not reflect the opinions of the moderators or admins, and merely reflects my personal opinion.

I'm in agreement with you. You have an "Amen" to that! :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Robban

-----------
Supporter
Dec 27, 2009
11,311
3,057
✟626,034.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Divorced
Personally, I'm inclined to think that it is dishonest, unless said use is disclosed. Also, Christianity affects humans, not robots, so I'm not sure taking ChatGPT's input on it is the most useful idea.

This is not connected with any sort of moderation decision, I'm just interested to hear what people think. Everything I say here does not reflect the opinions of the moderators or admins, and merely reflects my personal opinion.
I think or thought a forum was a place for sharing one's thoughts, ideas, views.

Like, one should not speak that which is not from the heart.

If I copied a quote because it has pulled at a heartstring, I will give the source or author of
the quote.

I have stacks and stacks of notes that I have made for personal use and sometimes I share them.
So, I have no use for newfangled robots or whatever they are about

I have not voted but will say it is better to converse with genuine people rather than parrots.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: linux.poet
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Personally, I'm inclined to think that it is dishonest, unless said use is disclosed. Also, Christianity affects humans, not robots, so I'm not sure taking ChatGPT's input on it is the most useful idea.

This is not connected with any sort of moderation decision, I'm just interested to hear what people think. Everything I say here does not reflect the opinions of the moderators or admins, and merely reflects my personal opinion.

Undisclosed quoting of a chatbot is effectively a form of plagiarism. This means that posters using undisclosed quotes are misrepresenting themselves.

I have no problem with a chatbot being quoted providing the quote is acknowledged and the bot is seen as a reliable source. This is similar to using media as a source.

One nagging problem is that using a chatbot, without acknowledgement, misrepresents the poster's ability to put together a reasonable argument. On the other hand, for CF posters who have difficulty converting thoughts into words, or those who are not native English speakers, chatbots can be seen as legitimate aids.

As a general rule chatbots are more likely to be rational. Extensive use of chatbots could help to minimise some of the more bizarre thinking we see around here. It might even help in filtering out some of the fake news/conspiracy theories we see regularly.

Overall, I'm comfortable with using chatbots as research aids providing, they are acknowledged.

OB
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
27,998
19,441
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟488,914.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Let's ask ChatGPT himself:

Chatbot.PNG
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Undisclosed quoting of a chatbot is effectively a form of plagiarism. This means that posters using undisclosed quotes are misrepresenting themselves.

The US high courts have said that content created purely through artificial intelligence isn't owned by anyone (as machines aren't persons), so it wouldn't legally be plagiarism.

I still think it would be generally unethical, for alot of other reasons.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
The US high courts have said that content created purely through artificial intelligence isn't owned by anyone (as machines aren't persons), so it wouldn't legally be plagiarism.

I still think it would be generally unethical, for alot of other reasons.


As a non-American any judgement by your courts carries little significance. In any case I wasn't thinking about legalities.

My comment related to plagiarism in the ethical sense.

OB
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
As a non-American any judgement by your courts carries little significance. In any case I wasn't thinking about legalities.

My comment related to plagiarism in the ethical sense.

OB

My point is that plagiarism has to involve some kind of intellectual theft. A chatbot is no different than using a calculator to solve a math problem, it's just a tool without real agency.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
My point is that plagiarism has to involve some kind of intellectual theft. A chatbot is no different than using a calculator to solve a math problem, it's just a tool without real agency.

Below is the definition of plagiarism used by Oxford University. In mentioning intellectual theft you are once again talking about a legal definition of plagiarism whereas the central issue defining plagiarism is misrepresentation through unattributed use. Even where the original author consents to the material being used it is still defined as plagiarism if not properly attributed.

Note that this definition clearly includes the unattributed use of material generated by AI.

Plagiarism is presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition, as is the use of material generated wholly or in part through use of artificial intelligence (save when use of Artificial Intelligence - AI for assessment has received prior authorisation e.g. as a reasonable adjustment for a student’s disability). Plagiarism can also include re-using your own work without citation. Under the regulations for examinations, intentional or reckless plagiarism is a disciplinary offence.
OB​
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
948
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,761.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Personally, I'm inclined to think that it is dishonest, unless said use is disclosed. Also, Christianity affects humans, not robots, so I'm not sure taking ChatGPT's input on it is the most useful idea.

This is not connected with any sort of moderation decision, I'm just interested to hear what people think. Everything I say here does not reflect the opinions of the moderators or admins, and merely reflects my personal opinion.
I think this ChatGPT is both amazing and scary. I didn't know about this until recently and stumbled across it in one of Jordan Petersons video's. First I think its a hard ethical issue because of its potential power. But people said that about the Internet and apps like Google when they first were proposed.

I think it could be luring to see how far you can go and then get away with creating a fake reality. So long as you don't actually use it to harm or take advantage. But I know it will be used for evil as all tech can be. I'm thinking fake news which can undermine what is real and we already have enough of that and also cybercrime and of course cheating. Many people may be fooled. Along with virtual reality we may get to a point where we are not able to know what is real or not. A bit like Simulation theory.

It seems at present ChatGPT works off a massive amount of human literature so it virtually knows how humans think in written form from the time we first wrote things down. But that is nothing new but rather is limited by what humans think. Although it can grasp a wide range of in depth knowledge more than the average person such as write Doctorate level essays and even write pretty good Hollywood level movies.

Peterson got it to write an essay on the intersection between the Daoist version of ethical morality and the ethics outlined in the Sermon on the Mount and it got it spot both grammatically and philosophically in about 3 seconds.

But as Peterson said it cannot apply that knowledge to the real world where it can think in scientific terms come up with new ideas and see if they can be applied to the real world. But he reckons that is coming pretty soon. God knows how that is going to change things.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MehGuy

A member of the less neotenous sex..
Supporter
Jul 23, 2007
55,889
10,812
Minnesota
✟1,154,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As someone who struggles with a language disability. If it helps tighten up my grammar and increase my vocabulary, I might use it.

Although I am somewhat fearful it might end up putting words in my mouth and skewing me to a more bland leftist direction.

Right now I'd say I would proofread before posting.. but realistically people eventually become lazy.
 
Upvote 0

MehGuy

A member of the less neotenous sex..
Supporter
Jul 23, 2007
55,889
10,812
Minnesota
✟1,154,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I do have a fear of AI, and it subtlety manipulating people and harming free speech.

I haven't used AI too much, but in my experience it's really sensitive. Often telling me my questions are offensive and not really delving too deeply into issues that go beyond a politically correct lens.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Below is the definition of plagiarism used by Oxford University. In mentioning intellectual theft you are once again talking about a legal definition of plagiarism whereas the central issue defining plagiarism is misrepresentation through unattributed use. Even where the original author consents to the material being used it is still defined as plagiarism if not properly attributed.

Note that this definition clearly includes the unattributed use of material generated by AI.

Plagiarism is presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition, as is the use of material generated wholly or in part through use of artificial intelligence (save when use of Artificial Intelligence - AI for assessment has received prior authorisation e.g. as a reasonable adjustment for a student’s disability). Plagiarism can also include re-using your own work without citation. Under the regulations for examinations, intentional or reckless plagiarism is a disciplinary offence.
OB​
This is an interesting argument. Undisclosed use of a chatbot is not plagiarism from a legal perspective, but is plagiarism from a university perspective. Note that the legal question is in no way limited to the United States, and this is indicated by your strange claim that, "posters using undisclosed quotes are misrepresenting themselves."

@FireDragon76 has the stronger argument since your university context is more foreign to CF than his legal context, but surely Oxford dictionary is more relevant than Oxford university:

1. The action or practice of plagiarizing; the wrongful appropriation or purloining, and publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas (literary, artistic, musical, mechanical, etc.) of another.​
This seems to be a novel ethical problem, and it would be worthwhile to investigate @FireDragon76's claim that using a chatbot is like using a calculator. I myself am not convinced that this is true. In any case, FD also sees such an act as unethical.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Personally, I'm inclined to think that it is dishonest, unless said use is disclosed. Also, Christianity affects humans, not robots, so I'm not sure taking ChatGPT's input on it is the most useful idea.

This is not connected with any sort of moderation decision, I'm just interested to hear what people think. Everything I say here does not reflect the opinions of the moderators or admins, and merely reflects my personal opinion.
I would be content to boil it down to a contract-consent issue, where forum-users enter into a tacit agreement to communicate with one another, and the undisclosed use of a chatbot violates this agreement. A similar thing happens on chess websites, where users are sometimes accused of adverting to chess AI when they start losing the game. In the forum context this would be a wonderful illustration of the difference between eristic and authentic truth-seeking, but I digress.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Note that the legal question is in no way limited to the United States, and this is indicated by your strange claim that, "posters using undisclosed quotes are misrepresenting themselves."

I imagine there may be places where plagiarism is an illegal act under certain circumstances. My point was that illegality doesn't define plagiarism. In simple terms, plagiarism occurs when a person presents something, done by someone else, as if it's their work. It is an unethical act but not necessarily an illegal act. The ethics issue arises from the pretence.
@FireDragon76 has the stronger argument since your university context is more foreign to CF than his legal context, but surely Oxford dictionary is more relevant than Oxford university:

Universities are potential hotbeds of plagiarism. Research papers, opinion papers, exam papers etc. provide a range of opportunities for misrepresentation. I would expect a university to have considerable expertise when it comes to defining and detecting plagiarism. Dictionaries provide basic definitions. Oxford University is a well-respected source on a topic (plagiarism) which is well within its purview.

The OP for this thread raises the issue of using AI within a post. This is an ethical issue not an issue related to law or crime. There is no law criminalising plagiarism on CF.

OB
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I imagine there may be places where plagiarism is an illegal act under certain circumstances. My point was that illegality doesn't define plagiarism. In simple terms, plagiarism occurs when a person presents something, done by someone else, as if it's their work. It is an unethical act but not necessarily an illegal act. The ethics issue arises from the pretence.
@FireDragon76 has already pointed out that the work is not done "by someone else," and therefore your definition of plagiarism will not convict the person who utilizes a chatbot.

Universities are potential hotbeds of plagiarism. Research papers, opinion papers, exam papers etc. provide a range of opportunities for misrepresentation. I would expect a university to have considerable expertise when it comes to defining and detecting plagiarism.
Universities are only concerned with plagiarism in a very limited capacity, and this is why your appeal to university regulations has so little force. Universities are merit-based institutions, predicated upon the idea that a student must present their own work for assessment. Universities are, properly speaking, concerned with the question of whether the student is the agent-cause of the work presented for assessment, not with plagiarism per se. So for universities the chatbot is illicit even though it is not plagiarism in the normal sense (because it is not done "by someone else"). Again, the legal context is more illuminating than the university context.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
@FireDragon76 has already pointed out that the work is not done "by someone else," and therefore your definition of plagiarism will not convict the person who utilizes a chatbot.
"Someone else" was me trying to keep it simple. The crux is presenting work as if it were yours. Plagiarism is not dependent on the nature or source of the original work. If a chatbot does the work and you claim it's yours - you have plagiarised. Oxford specifically cites AI as a potential source of plagiarised material.
Universities are only concerned with plagiarism in a very limited capacity, and this is why your appeal to university regulations has so little force. Universities are merit-based institutions, predicated upon the idea that a student must present their own work for assessment. Universities are, properly speaking, concerned with the question of whether the student is the agent-cause of the work presented for assessment, not with plagiarism per se. So for universities the chatbot is illicit even though it is not plagiarism in the normal sense (because it is not done "by someone else"). Again, the legal context is more illuminating than the university context.

If presented material is not their own work but is presented as if it is their own work then, by definition, its plagiarised. Whether or not the act of presenting the material as your own is legal is immaterial.

This thread is about ethics, not law.
OB
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
"Someone else" was me trying to keep it simple. The crux is presenting work as if it were yours.
As I have already explained, this is only the crux for a university.

Oxford specifically cites AI as a potential source of plagiarised material.
The reason they specifically cite AI is because FD is right: AI does not naturally fall within plagiarism. If Oxford had not included that addendum it would be reasonable to assume--as the legal system does--that chatbots are not plagiarism.

If presented material is not their own work but is presented as if it is their own work then, by definition, its plagiarised.
Not by any definition you have presented, apart from the specialized university context which I have addressed in detail. You aren't addressing the arguments that FD or I have made. You just keep repeating your same initial points that were refuted long ago.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,555
Colorado
✟427,871.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
As someone who struggles with a language disability. If it helps tighten up my grammar and increase my vocabulary, I might use it.

Although I am somewhat fearful it might end up putting words in my mouth and skewing me to a more bland leftist direction.

Right now I'd say I would proofread before posting.. but realistically people eventually become lazy.
From my perspective your writing is perfectly fine, consistently. Maybe you're having to work extra hard at that. But so far so good.

I'm not sure how a chat AI would help you out. Would you just ask it to re-write your own ideas more clearly?
 
Upvote 0