I am noticing that more and more folks are using AI like Grok to get answers to day to day questions and problems. Even here on the forum at some point someone will make a post with a lengthy "answer" from Grok, ChatGPT or similar. I myself have started using it to answer a lot of questions.

What kind of impact do you think this will have on discussion groups now that detail answers can be easily obtained with a simple query.

I am referring to more objective types of questions like "how do I clean lead fouling from my barrel" verses subjective or philosophical questions like "should we support the 2A".

I used ChatGPT for the first time this week.
Needed a diplomatic response to a situation and used it to clean up the verbiage.
But have never used it otherwise.

3 forums I frequent are the extent of my 'social media' and just haven't had the need to venture in to the AI world yet.

I posted a Gemini AI thread response yesterday

The discussion was around Karmelo Anthony's planned appeal. I looked up the 2020 census demographics and had Gemini do the statistical likelihood of not having an African American on the jury in that county. I cared enough to further the discussion in the thread but not enough to do the statistical analysis myself. A year ago, I probably wouldn't have responded.

If you look at the Sigforum slogan, "Quality Firearms, Quality Discussion". If using AI furthers Quality Discussion then I'm all for it.

I'm in the "AI is the debil" camp. Then again, I said the same thing about the internet in the 90's.

How do you know I am not an A.I. bot right now. #evil, #bwahahahahahaha

I use Grok to write porn stories with popular TV characters from old TV shows. You have no idea the things Miss Kitty has done to Chester.

I don't think any of us want to know.

As long as no AI "bots" are posing as actual members, I'm reluctantly OK with it.

If AI search results are being posted, they should be disclosed as such. And - this is more personal - when I ask a question, I don't want to just be told "do a search". I could have done that myself (and sometimes do). I'll still take real - if invisible - people, with real experience, over what is nothing more than a great big database working with a really fast search engine. AI has no creativity or even common sense.

Edited to hopefully make my intent clearer.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: egregore,

I can't stand AI. It's my boss's new favorite crutch. He's been AI'ing me to death with things about how to do a job that I've been doing since 1978! What's funny is he uses three different ones and sends me all three at any hour of the day or night and on weekends.
Not for much longer though!

I quit reading a post when I see "Grok said" or something similar. I'm moving into my curmudgeon stage of life and I'm sure I'll find a use for AI someday, but in the meantime I'll do my own thinking or if I need someone with experience ask you guys.

Meh, anyone complaining about Grok or ChatGPT as a source, probably didn't have any issues with someone doing a google search and posting whatever google came up with as source material prior to AI.

It's the future, so, get used to it

Depends what you define as a discussion board.
Most of the AI models source a lot of material from reddit and wikipedia unless you specifically request them not to.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Meh, anyone complaining about Grok or ChatGPT as a source, probably didn't have any issues with someone doing a google search and posting whatever google came up with as source material prior to AI.

It obviously depends on how the AI sources are queried. For example, when I recently asked about the barrel life of rifles chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor versus 308 Winchester the response was more useful than an old Google search because it drew on multiple sources to provide an explanatory answer.

The old way would have, at best, linked to articles that might or might not have pertained to what I wanted, and would have required me to open them and see what they had to say. When using AI, it's possible to ask for specific links that supported the AI answer if needed. I also find it useful for more open-ended questions because the AI sources are more capable of figuring out what I’m getting at with a vague search. I did that recently to determine the name of a medical condition whose name I couldn’t quite remember.

On the other hand, and has been stated many times here, and even in the fine print at the bottom of the AI sites, that it can make mistakes and anything critical or seemingly off should be independently confirmed.

But if the whole idea offends one, then by all means, don’t use it.

I don't concouisly use AI, but I suppose doing a Google search gives me AI answers. I haven't used it to post here in any way though.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
It obviously depends on how the AI sources are queried. For example, when I recently asked about the barrel life of rifles chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor versus 308 Winchester the response was more useful than an old Google search because it drew on multiple sources to provide an explanatory answer.

The old way would have, at best, linked to articles that might or might not have pertained to what I wanted, and would have required me to open them and see what they had to say. When using AI, it's possible to ask for specific links that supported the AI answer if needed. I also find it useful for more open-ended questions because the AI sources are more capable of figuring out what I’m getting at with a vague search. I did that recently to determine the name of a medical condition whose name I couldn’t quite remember.

Correct. Used as a tool to aggregate data, these LLMs are head and shoulders above manual searches with a search engine.

You will find posts by me in this forum which say that the information I present in them was gathered using Grok, including this prime example of its utility. To condemn these tools outright is shortsighted. There's nothing inherently evil in them.

The key is to be forthright when you post information you gathered with one of these tools; state it upfront. "Garbage in, garbage out" certainly applies, so the information provided by these tools can be incorrect. You have to keep your eyes open and use your judgement, and perhaps do a bit of additional research outside of AI if you have any doubts.

Now...

If ever I find a member has used an LLM to compose a response and tried to pass it off as their own, that's going to be a real problem, and if ever I find someone doing it again after getting caught, they'll be shown the door.

For many years, bots have made occasional appearances in the forum, and thankfully, they're not too difficult to spot. they exhibit certain characteristics in their behavior, and sooner or later, they get exposed and removed.

If I wanted to know what AI said, I’d have asked AI. I value people’s real world experience which is why I ask questions here.

I see the reverse on some discussion boards. AI is used to masquerade as a human asking a question. They're trying to spur engagement and clicks, probably for ad revenue. Usually it starts as a question like "Which gun cleaner do you prefer". So far it seems easy to spot.

In this forum, that stuff sticks out like a sore thumb. I won't tolerate it.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
If I wanted to know what AI said, I’d have asked AI. I value people’s real world experience which is why I ask questions here.

Exactly.

This is a discussion forum. If I wanted to hear an entire response from a LLM chatbot, I'd ask a LLM chatbot.

Either have an original thought/opinion, or have some personal experience/knowledge, or else just don't post.

Not every thread requires your response. If you don't know anything about the topic and have to ask a LLM to generate an entire response for you to simply copy/paste, it'd be better to just not post anything.

Now, using it like a search engine to gather data to help formulate part of your response, or to crunch some stats for you to include in your post, is a while nother animal. That's a legitimate tool (provided you always consider the possibility of hallucinations and errors).

But when someone asks a question or presents a challenge, and some members' entire responses consist of "Grok says [copypaste]..." or "I asked ChatGPT and here's what it replied: [regurgitate]", that's just unnecessary. Move along, and let others with actual individual contributions to the discussion reply.

I find nothing wrong with augmenting one's commentary with such data, as long as it's relevant, and as long as the practice is not habitual.