• Replies 29 replies
  • Subscribers 94 subscribers
  • Views 1540 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

I’ve Decided to leave the forum.

Roy

I’ve been giving this much thought over the last few days, I’ve been here for nearly 4 years and have learned much about autism. Not to sound too soppy, it’s been and still is a mind blowing autistic journey. I’ve seen lots of people come and go and have enjoyed chatting to different people. Lots has changed since I first joined.

I have found it very disturbing to see a fellow autistic human subjected to trial and verdict by AI, as autistic people we often have strong views on subjects, they are just that, views or opinions, why should someone’s opinions need to be constantly fact checked by a computer? It seems NAS we’re complicit in this act by condoning it, this is a public forum that the whole world can access. It looks as if the act was a long time in its planning. Are we getting to a world where a court is to dispense with a jury of human adults and simply feed the evidence into a computer? The AI has decided either guilt or innocence and passed sentence. It’s not a word I would wish to be part of. To be honest I’m shocked over the whole situation. AI can also not comprehend human compassion.

I don’t want to engage any further, I more just wanted to say goodbye, and to the good times.

Parents

  • I am sorry you are going, as I enjoyed engaging with your posts.

    I think I understand some of what you feel, as I thought I was seeing things when I first read the post and I also found it very disturbing. I don’t like anybody making personal attacks because I believe people are worth much more than their deeds and words, whether they are virtuous, immoral, or anything in between. I also didn’t like seeing a derogatory term used to characterise some women.

    I don’t think the moderators can ban anybody using AI quotations in their posts, and I don’t they they should either, as that would be stopping freedom of expression in the same way as it could in posts without AI content. 

    It would be a different matter if the person posting was not making it clear that AI was the source. I do not agree with an attack on a person, rather than on an argument, but I don’t believe AI was used to deceive, it may have been used to make the personal attack as vitriolic as possible, or there may have been another reason to make it such an imprudent assault. Ultimately, the post was made using words understood and approved by the person who posted it, but that is a different argument. 

    I believe that in this case the more important question to ask is “Should attacks  on the personhood of members of this community be permitted?” 

    Community rules would suggest otherwise.

    Rule 7: Be respectful in discussions. Disagreements are fine, but personal attacks and insults are not. Swearing is not allowed. Please respect other viewpoints and avoid taking sides in arguments. Comments can be misinterpreted, and posts may come from users who are anxious or distressed. If something upsets you, take a break before responding.

    Politicians are increasingly using emotive words and engaging in personal attacks in an effort to attract votes. Many are unable to listen, dialogue, argue and discuss without resorting to personal attacks and they are poorer communicators and ineffective because of it.  I would hate it if we descended to similar depths as I believe we have a massively valuable resource in this community. 

    Perhaps Rule 7 should be enforced? 

Reply

  • I am sorry you are going, as I enjoyed engaging with your posts.

    I think I understand some of what you feel, as I thought I was seeing things when I first read the post and I also found it very disturbing. I don’t like anybody making personal attacks because I believe people are worth much more than their deeds and words, whether they are virtuous, immoral, or anything in between. I also didn’t like seeing a derogatory term used to characterise some women.

    I don’t think the moderators can ban anybody using AI quotations in their posts, and I don’t they they should either, as that would be stopping freedom of expression in the same way as it could in posts without AI content. 

    It would be a different matter if the person posting was not making it clear that AI was the source. I do not agree with an attack on a person, rather than on an argument, but I don’t believe AI was used to deceive, it may have been used to make the personal attack as vitriolic as possible, or there may have been another reason to make it such an imprudent assault. Ultimately, the post was made using words understood and approved by the person who posted it, but that is a different argument. 

    I believe that in this case the more important question to ask is “Should attacks  on the personhood of members of this community be permitted?” 

    Community rules would suggest otherwise.

    Rule 7: Be respectful in discussions. Disagreements are fine, but personal attacks and insults are not. Swearing is not allowed. Please respect other viewpoints and avoid taking sides in arguments. Comments can be misinterpreted, and posts may come from users who are anxious or distressed. If something upsets you, take a break before responding.

    Politicians are increasingly using emotive words and engaging in personal attacks in an effort to attract votes. Many are unable to listen, dialogue, argue and discuss without resorting to personal attacks and they are poorer communicators and ineffective because of it.  I would hate it if we descended to similar depths as I believe we have a massively valuable resource in this community. 

    Perhaps Rule 7 should be enforced? 

Children
No Data