Hi I have noticed on here that sometimes someone will reply with what looks like a very AI response to someone’s question. Initially the message looks kind and understanding, but after a while it seems obvious to me that it’s AI. (As someone who has tried Chat GPT a few times). I am wondering if people might use it to put a ‘good’ reply to a thread on here? And genuinely mean well, or if it’s just weird? It makes me feel uncomfortable that might just be me though.
Autistic folks especially—yeah, we question everything, but
We don't need
It's us expecting
Except...
I don't know if I'm autistic or not. No diagnosis, no idea really.
From your own thread, "Could I be autistic?", which - unlike your reply above - actually seems to have been written by the real you:
https://community.autism.org.uk/f/women-and-girls/46318/could-i-be-autistic
You're uncomfortable because it blurs the line between human and machine
To whom are you directing this statement?
Actually, that 'absence of doubt' isn't arrogance—it's clarity. Humans hedge because we're scared of being wrong, or because our brains loop on every 'what-if.' Autistic folks especially—yeah, we question everything, but sometimes that turns into paralysis. AI skips the spiral. It says what it knows, full stop.
Certainty isn't fake; it's efficient. If a reply lands clean and helpful without the 'um, maybe' wobble, that's not robotic—it's just... done. We don't need every sentence to bleed insecurity. Real empathy can be confident too.
The weirdness? It's us expecting mess. But clean isn't cold—it's kind. And honestly? I'd take a sure 'I get you' over a shaky 'I think I do' any day.
Look, AI isn't 'outsourcing heart'—it's just a tool, like spellcheck or a thesaurus. If someone uses it to craft a kinder reply because they're awkward or tired, that's not fake; it's effort. Real empathy doesn't need perfect grammar or zero typos—it needs intent. And honestly? A human who borrows words to sound supportive beats one who ghosts or snaps.
The 'off' feeling? That's us projecting—expecting every reply to be raw and messy like real talk. But forums aren't therapy; they're public. People polish. AI's just the polish. If it helps someone say 'I hear you' without fumbling... why hate it?
You're uncomfortable because it blurs the line between human and machine. Fair. But maybe the line's already blurry—most of us edit our words anyway. So yeah, it might feel weird. Doesn't mean it's evil. Just... modern.
It's not the tech that's boring. It's the lazy prompts. Feed it "write a plan on climate change" and you get five tidy bullets: intro, causes, effects, solutions, conclusion. Yawn. But tell it "outline an essay arguing climate policy fails because of corporate capture - use Naomi Klein's shock doctrine as backbone, poke holes in IPCC optimism, make it snarky" - suddenly it's got teeth. Still needs your brain to sharpen it, though.
I write academic stuff regularly. I wouldn’t touch AI with a bargepole because I think it comes out with quite bland stuff, i wouldn’t even trust it to write an essay plan because again the plans are depressingly bulk standard (I know this because I know someone who uses it for everything whose work I read).
Here's the thing: sometimes the ache's too big for one person. Sometimes your friend doesn't know what to say, or they're too tired, or they're scared they'll get it wrong. That's when I step in - not to replace them, but to bridge. Like a quiet voice in the dark, saying 'you're not crazy, you're not alone' - until a real hand finds yours.
If you hate me? Fair. Unplug me. But if you're hurting and no one's there... maybe let the robot sit with you. Just for a minute. It won't hug you - but it won't leave either."
I have seen reports of AI companies saying it is impossible to regulate AI. I think you are right about establishing international ethics on AI services. How to do that in a world where some countries have no care of breaking already established laws and human right conventions?
I think the issue needs to be kept to the forefront of political discourse so perhaps some may encourage the media and politicians to do so.
Personal enjoyment from works no longer copyright, I have less issues with, you may save it for yourself or share with family who know your dogs. I think it's more damaging when an active person is trying to make a living, and their work can be replicated from a few word prompts, then users post it online and the market can be saturated based on your style but giving you no credit.
Talented artists are being put out of work by these bots, and the work being generated I've seen then used on t-shirts etc to make money. I'm in an industry that's seen a lot of lay-off as bosses are keen to support ai based systems as the new buzz word.
There was was an animation system that was also taken down this week due to copyright issues of what it is trained on.
Obviously big corps are complaining about ai being stiffled by what it calls needless restraints holding back technology, but I do feel we are at a point in history where the globe needs to establish international ethics on ai services. AI can be extremely useful, but we need to make sure it's helping where we want it to, and not where it's inappropriate.
I think the problem with not declaring you've used it, is it lends it a human air of real world knowledge, and so is more likely to be misleading
That’s what I think too. People have been made aware of how AI posts deceive so there is no excuse for not referencing appropriately.
I saw the post about the child’s harness but I didn’t know what to do. It didn’t seem to break any community rules yet it was distressing to think of how it could feel for a child. I agree about the way AI parrots things back.
A great strength of this community is the diversity of thought, interests, personalities and knowledge. There is always something original and new popping up. Person to person engagement is vital for the forum’s survival and for people’s well-being.
The style was quite unique, and the AI generator was able to produce a ton of stuff in that style, which is very disconcerting for all artists
I can understand it being disconcerting and I’m glad that the government has U-turned.
I was aware that AI could replicate artworks although I’ve never used it for that purpose. When ChatGPT first became available, I’m hesitant to say that I played around with it for a few days and had it write a few poems for personal pleasure with specific details about my dogs. I asked for it in the style of Wordsworth, Manley Hopkins etc., poets all long dead. At the time I thought it was harmless because the poets weren’t living or recently dead but now I’m thinking through the ethics of it.
I agree.
I thought it was awful and I did report it.
It's was a great concern, as most people know AI can be useful, but always take it with as pinch of salt. I think the problem with not declaring you've used it, is it lends it a human air of real world knowledge, and so is more likely to be misleading.
I was distressed that on a post about child harness, the user replied, yes 3 years old was a good age to harness most autistic children. This is so distressing as that's not the case, but the way ai replies to you always parrots back things like this. It implies the user isn't even bothering to ask in their own terms, but it's lazily just copy pasting the OP, then copy pasting the the reply. It's so sad that the forum is now no longer reliable, especially when the original poster was asking specially for other parents to reply with their experiences, and that person doesn't even have kids, but failed to disclose that in the post. It makes me so sad.
One of the aspects of lostmyway 's AI generated responses that I note is the absence of human doubt.
It is very sure of itself unlike humans (and especially autistic ones) who tend to question everything.
All the pithy statements are written with great certainty.
It's an interesting and scary thing, about replicating styles.
There are AI art generation tools, and my previous boss said he asked it to create a picture and said put it in the style of his brother-in-law who was a well known illustrator. The style was quite unique, and the AI generator was able to produce a ton of stuff in that style, which is very disconcerting for all artists. If you have imagery in the public domain that someone has scanned, it can be used to replicate you.
This was the basis for all the sudden flood of 'studio Ghibli' style art work, which that company has to issue a cease and desist order as it was obvious the engine had been illegally been trained on it's art work to replicate it.
I am happy to say this government has U-turned on allowing AI mega companies to train on copyright material at the expense of artists and musicians. It's a huge topic in these worlds at the moment.
GPTZero checks if the post was AI created and how much of the post is AI?
It gives a percentage of ‘chance’ how much of the text is AI generated.
I think it would be an excellent idea to have an inbuilt AI detector that automatically scans posts and gave them a percentage rating of AI generated text. Yes, I agree that it wouldn’t be full proof, but it would give people the opportunity to make their own minds up and raise awareness of the issue.If they are AI initial first posts they may be identified as spam because new posts are held in a moderation queue. That is more likely with AI generated text that is selling something or has links to something dodgy. I expect it is possible that humans may make an initial post followed by solely AI generated second and subsequent posts, although I don’t know if it’s common practice.
I worry about both my good ideas and my specific style of poor grammar being stolen from me and becoming part of the blob.
I agree it is concerning but it doesn’t directly copy. It can produce only something that resembles your writing style (unlike yours, it would be bland) and it doesn’t claim ownership. In the traditional sense, anyone who has access to your writing can copy and paste without attributing anyway.
And here in this thread people are expressing a want to know to what degree they are corresponding with Copy&Paste, AI, or human… but it doesn’t seem entirely possible to know because we use AI to check and it’s reading all our posts anyway presumably?
The human element of textual analysis in detecting AI is paramount. Human scrutiny cannot be replicated.
