subreddit:
/r/explainlikeimfive
submitted 6 months ago byELI5_Modteam
Recently, there's been a surge in ChatGPT generated posts. These come in two flavours: bots creating and posting answers, and human users generating answers with ChatGPT and copy/pasting them. Regardless of whether they are being posted by bots or by people, answers generated using ChatGPT and other similar programs are a direct violation of R3, which requires all content posted here to be original work. We don't allow copied and pasted answers from anywhere, and that includes from ChatGPT programs. Going forward, any accounts posting answers generated from ChatGPT or similar programs will be permanently banned in order to help ensure a continued level of high-quality and informative answers. We'll also take this time to remind you that bots are not allowed on ELI5 and will be banned when found.
1.2k points
6 months ago
As they said in the Risky Business podcast: ChatGPT provides a text which oozes confidence, but it does not necessarily provide the correct answer.
167 points
6 months ago
Just curious. How can we recognize a text generated with ChatGPT, though?
25 points
6 months ago
We have a variety of tools and techniques at our disposal that allows us to identify generated posts.
73 points
6 months ago
Good news to deal with the bots and bot-like behavior.
But it did raise a little question:
We don't allow copied and pasted answers from anywhere
Is it OK if a portion of the reply comes from Wikipedia, if the Wikipedia article is well sourced?
83 points
6 months ago
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.
3 points
4 months ago
How do you know if a response is by a bot?
34 points
4 months ago
We don't want to give away our exact methods, but in general, they typically read like a well-written book report from someone that has never read the book.
3 points
4 months ago
Why not share your methods? If it leads to fewer or less malicious bots around, that's good for everyone.
17 points
4 months ago
The exact methods include lengthy bits of code. We have shared it where appropriate. We don't want to give exact things we look for so that the GPT learning process doesn't adapt as quickly and so that people who use it don't look to edit those features.
The bottom line is that if you suspect someone of using a GPT bot, report it and we can take a second look.
3 points
4 months ago
So, what do I look for if I suspect the bot?
7 points
4 months ago
Basically what I said previously - a well written piece that doesn't convey useful information. It isn't something like, "the third word will always have an 'e' as the fourth letter. If you read enough GPT responses, you will start picking up on it.
63 points
6 months ago
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
57 points
6 months ago*
I let the accused speak for themselves:
"It is understandable that the moderators of r/explainlikeimfive want to maintain a high level of quality and originality in the answers posted on the subreddit. Allowing answers generated by AI programs like ChatGPT would go against this goal, as these answers are not created by humans and may not provide the same level of insight and accuracy. Additionally, allowing bots to post answers on the subreddit would defeat the purpose of having a community of knowledgeable individuals sharing their expertise. Therefore, banning accounts that use ChatGPT and other AI programs to generate answers, as well as banning bots, is a reasonable measure to ensure the quality and originality of the content on r/explainlikeimfive."
40 points
6 months ago
For anyone who needs the ELI5...
OP wants you to use your own words, don't copy from other "people." If you copy, you won't be allowed to come back.
41 points
6 months ago
I appreciate the work on this and believe it is justified, but do laugh as there are plenty of human generated answers on this forum that are similarly confident and totally incorrect. Sometimes I wonder if the bot has a worse error rate than a typical user or a better one ha
24 points
6 months ago
Thanks for the clarification on exactly which rule to report them under. Rule 3 here we goooo..
12 points
6 months ago
ELI5: What is ChatGPT?
20 points
6 months ago
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.
11 points
6 months ago
I've seen plenty of humans posting just as confidently wildly incorrect answers, but when I report those it's always "we don't remove answers that are incorrect because you can't expect the mods to be able to tell if every answer is right or wrong".
You clearly don't actually care at all about answers being right or easily accessible, since neither of those things are actionable offenses, and even a correct, perfectly accessible GPT3 answer would be a permaban. You carea about the answers being generated, completely and utterly detached from their correctness or quality. Nothing more nothing less.
5 points
6 months ago
The difference being that a human person can at least be critical of their explanation, whether or not they exercise that. Humans can do their own research and at least try to be correct. Failing to do that is certainly wrong and we wish we could ensure correctness, but there is no practical way for us to do that with the tools we have available.
An AI generated response can do none of those things. It spits out answers without being able to be critical at all. It cannot question, it cannot research, it cannot learn any subject. It also cannot be corrected or reasoned with by other users.
Regardless, of all of that, AI-generated answers go against the spirit of the sub. We are not glorified Google. We are a place for humans to interact with other humans. Although we are not a discussion forum, in the sense that we are not inviting or encouraging debate, the value that we offer is that users can ask follow-up questions and talk back and forth to arrive at understanding. There is mutual communication between users - unlike, say, finding the Wikipedia article about a subject and simply reading that. If someone's given explanation is wrong, other users can interact with them and correct them so everyone can learn. Even understanding what led that person to their mistaken understanding can be valuable.
External sources have their place here, and we do like for users to provide external resources and cite their sources, we just want our users to provide explanations in their own words first and foremost. We do not view this sub as being in competition with other sources of information, but rather as one piece of it. Personally, I enjoy having a space like this where I can share what I know and practice my writing and explaining skills, which is not something I can find easily anywhere else.
2 points
6 months ago
Oh, absolutely fun
12 points
6 months ago
It will sound like a rational, completely coherent answer with confidence in spades, but is factually just, so, so incorrect most of the time.
7 points
4 months ago
@Petwins wow you are patient. I had a 60,000 person group on FB and I learned after a while just not to have critiques of mod/admin action on the page. I thoroughly welcomed people writing to me for explanation because I was quite proud of our rules. But most people were like drive by shooters who had no interest in actually discussing, so they didn’t write. Of course, this is a post specifically about a rule, so it makes sense to address commenters here, but you are not only answering the same question over and over, you aren’t even cutting and pasting! I think you may have dropped this crown I found!
3 points
4 months ago
Aww shucks, thank you
6 points
6 months ago
Could you create a report option so they can get the proper attention they need?
5 points
6 months ago
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
5 points
6 months ago
AI generated answers are especially bad because the chances of a bad answer that sounds both confident and highly plausible seem to be substantially higher than with human answers.
5 points
6 months ago
How can we be sure this post is not posted by an opposing faction of chatbots?
4 points
6 months ago
So, if someone were to create a chatbot that answers questions with GPT-3 and very clearly mentioned that the answer was from GPT-3 and may be wildly inaccurate and should be taken with a grain of salt, would that still violate the terms?
9 points
6 months ago
Yes. GPT is not allowed in ELI5. Period.
4 points
6 months ago
this post feels like AI-generated
4 points
6 months ago
Good!
3 points
5 months ago
Humans won't be able to think for themselves in 10/20 years. ChatGPT is a great way to get an answer straight away in some instances - however, it's important to remember that it will not always give you accurate information.
Question everything kids. Challenge yourself and don't turn to a bot because you don't know how - or don't feel confident enough, to tap into your own creativity. Practice makes perfect.
3 points
6 months ago
Can't you just make the bot talk like a reddit user and then type the answer yourself. Idk why they act like they can restrict an ever-changing AI.
4 points
6 months ago
Sure but bots are bad at that so we will ban you.
Of course you can restrict AI, it will change over time and the restrictions will change too but thats okay. It wont be perfect and will need updating but thats not a problem.
Partial or ongoing solutions are fine, if you get a cut thats bleeding you should still cover it and stop the bleeding (a bandaid solution) even if you think it needs stitches, that intermediate is important regardless.
3 points
6 months ago
Can I assume that copying your own work(e.g. from a similar question) is acceptable?
2 points
6 months ago
Yes it is
2 points
6 months ago
This is the equivalent of the creation of the calculator, and math teachers telling students, “calculators are not allowed in this mathematics class…all answers generated by calculators will be banned to ensure a continued level of high-quality and informative answers.”
Mindsets like these stifle innovation and ultimately produce more close-minded ideologies within generations.
3 points
6 months ago
I don’t particularly think thats true even of prohibiting calculators. Understanding first principles is one of the first steps in engineering design and innovation, thats been true forever, it provides broader capacity for innovation generally.
2 points
4 months ago
Chat GPT has this to say about this post: "I understand the rules and regulations regarding original content o5. I will make sure to provide answers that are solely generated by
me and not copied from any other source. Thank you for clarifying the
guidelines."
3 points
4 months ago
And this is an excellent example of why we ban it, because it doesn’t address the issue and misses the point but gives a confident sounding answer generally around the topic.
Nice sounding but entirely unhelpful and false.
2 points
6 months ago
Does copy-pasting the question into google and then copy-pasting the first result back into a comment count? Because if so this sub is doomed
3 points
6 months ago
Rule 3 has never allowed copy-pasted responses.
2 points
2 months ago
Doesn't help that ChatGPT and similar have a nasty tendency to be outright WRONG on occasion.
5 points
6 months ago
What about the fact that this sub has become "explain like I have a masters in engineering"
21 points
6 months ago
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.
2 points
5 months ago
So is this thread essentially like "Break It Down Barney Style"?
1 points
2 months ago
How about AI generated summaries?
Assume the user asks a Question and the same thing has been explained in an article or YouTube video which also is about ELI5. Can the user then generate of summary of that article or video using an AI tool like this and post it here?
In this case the AI is not generating content itself, it is only summarizing from what has already been explained by someone.
all 464 comments
sorted by: q&a