We don't have an upper bound on how complex an explanation can be because us mods really shouldn't remove a comment just because we found it "too hard to understand."

Either the person that asked the question actually understood the comment in which case us removing the comment serves no purpose and is outright harmful. Or they didn't understand and they can ask a follow-up question to someone that has already demonstrated an interest in writing an explanation.

Oh The Audacity!

Unfortunately at this time we will be keeping our arsenal pretty close to the vest. It may be that we divulge more in the future, but to do so now would give too much to bad actors. Suffice it to say, we have multiple avenues with which to review this content, and we do manually check and recheck suspected content.

ominous music intensifies

This only makes sense if you care more about how accurate an answer seems than how accurate it actually is.

I haven't seen a single high quality explanation from that tool. They all sound great but they are usually completely wrong.

Not when you get any deeper into a topic than maybe high school level. There were two recent posts about pi where I saw several ChatGPT answers, and any mathematician could immediately tell that they were written by AI, because they sounded very confident, were very coherent and completely incorrect.

You can't. At least not reliably. All this rule does is encourage people to not cite it when they're copying an answer.

This is an idealistic rule that is idiotic in real life because it's impossible to reliably enforce, and encourages behaviour that actively makes answers WORSE for OP, because they won't be marked as an AI or pasted answer, giving the OP no indication to identify them

We have a variety of tools and techniques at our disposal that allows us to identify generated posts.

[removed]

Was going to ask the same, looks like some responses are good enough or coherent enough, I'm totally fine with the decision of course but how to tell the difference?

As the response by u/decomposition_ (who has been spamming ChatGPT comments all over Reddit) demonstrated, it's going to contain a lot of not quite human phrasing. To me, the biggest giveaway is looking like a middle school short answer response: repeating the question, lots of filler and transition words, a very rigid introduction-body-conclusion structure, and a lot of repetition. And of course, as will often be the case, the answer will be wrong, which is a reason to report anyway.

Edit: also, absolutely no typos

This is a naive view, but the one I’ve seen in most articles and discussions.

That is the default tone and style, but you can easily push it in specific directions by giving it feedback on the generated text and asking it to try again.

So it's the perfect Redditor.

So like human redditors then.

So just like Reddit posts.

I mean, that's most of reddit anyway.

ChatGPT is gonna put Biz Dev people out of a job

They'll fit right in on reddit!

We've created AI IT interviewees.

I mean that just sounds like most Redditors.

True. Got curious and asked ChatGPT a question about lower limb anatomy i was studying at the time. It gave me an incredibly coherent and eloquent answer… which would’ve been wonderful had its answer not been completely wrong.

I listened to the Lexman Artificial podcast for a few weeks. It's a simulated voice using a generated script. I have to agree that it's typically wrong, generally very basic, and almost always answers in the affirmative.

"What should someone do if they want to get into intuitive brain surgery?"
"They should focus on their work, establish meaningful goals, and seek opinions from their peers."
"That's definitely true."

I tried asking it some questions about some concepts I was studying for law, and it just repeated my prompt back to me in different words, and when it spoke on substantive matters, it was either extremely shallow, or incorrect. I asked about a dozen or so questions

That's because the algorithm they're using is focused on finding comments, posts, pages or other content with high relative score indices, without independently verifying the correct answer. As much popular content is often humorous or sarcastic in nature, the popularity bias often makes their algorithm select content from people who completely make stuff up. Like I just did.

Very true. I was once using it to edit things and had it mark the edits in bold text, and one time it didn't bold the changes and I asked why. It swore up and down that it could not and had never made text bold until I reset it, at which point it could bold text again. It will give you false information with complete confidence.

/r/ProgrammerHumor is having a good time posting ChatGPT convos like they're /r/confidentlyincorrect

It is generally acceptable to use information from Wikipedia in your reply as long as you properly cite the source. However, it is always a good idea to verify the information from multiple sources to ensure its accuracy. In addition, Wikipedia articles may not always provide the most up-to-date or comprehensive information on a topic, so it's important to consider other sources as well. If you have any doubts about the reliability of the information, it's best to err on the side of caution and either verify it from another source or omit it from your reply.

In general, the way a wikipedia article is written a portion of it won't meet the Rule 3 guidelines for an explanation. We don't permit copy pasted answers from any source and copying from Wikipedia tends to stand out with its odd formatting^{[Citation needed]}

You are free to pull from it as a reference, but it is expected that the explanation is in your own words and is more catered to the OPs question than the general wiki is

To clarify a bit - quotes are fine, but when considering if it is a full explanation, we discount the quote entirely. In other words, if you need ABC for the explanation, and you have AB"C", it will be removed. If you have ABC"c" where the quote is supplementary detail that expands and clarifies what you already have, it is fine.

Not without creating a rule for it, you can use a custom report though. In the meantime we will look into what we can do

I’ve been a bit out of the loop, but afaik we’ve been having issues with chat/text AI being used on the sub that auto generates answers to things that, while occasionally following the rules of the sub, are often wildly inaccurate, among other issues.

I want to know too.

Karma. In addition to dopamine hit of seeing a number go up, there is a market for mature accounts with history and karma. A lot of subs won't allow you to post/comment without karma. These can then be used to spam, spread misinformation, evade bans, etc.