Thanks for the reply. Seems pretty minimalist.

Summaries and semantic search look helpful. How the AI bot fits will depend on how it is implemented and how powerful it is.

I suggest you don't think of it as a participant. As I say, it won't do philosophy, just grunt-work.

@Paine @Hanover

To summarize:

AI on Discourse will not participate in discussions but will just do background labour—things like summarizing, filtering spam, providing help (like telling you how to change the background colour). It's just a clever tool, not a member of the forum.

Ok, cheers.

Might be a lost opportunity, but I'm not up on the detail. Or cost.

Maybe, in the forum after the next, it will be considered the norm.

The features are: — Jamal

3, 7, 8 and 10 I love.

2 and 9 I wonder if they're on a vague but useful borderline? Dunno. No clear objection, anyway.

1, 4, 5 and 6, though? I can't see how they square with:

Site Guidelines (Note: NO AI-WRITTEN CONTENT ALLOWED!)

[...] AI LLMs may be used to proofread pre-written posts, but if this results in you being suspected of using them to write posts, that is a risk you run. We recommend that you do not use them at all. — Baden

?

I suppose such notions will disappear in the rewritten guidelines?

I mean, boo! :cry: but still grateful for your efforts.

Out of interest, and I'm not holding my breath, but I don't suppose there is any chance at all of turning particular buttons on or off in particular categories? You could (if that were the case) try a "Luddites' Corner", for people preferring specifically human to human dialectic?

1, 4, 5 and 6, though? — bongo fury

(As a reminder these are the relevant items of @Jamal's stipulated usages of AI):
1. AI Summaries (Topic Summaries)
4. AI Bot
5. Post Editing Assistant
6. AI Autofill / Autocomplete

I suspect a handful of posters use these already. Perhaps to mitigate surface-level typographical errors arising from the designated language of this forum not being their first or "primary" language.

So, effectively, though it might encourage a few people who would otherwise not use AI, it likely will only be used by people who use AI anyway.

Do I think it's necessary? Of course not. Would I prefer it be turned off altogether? Maybe maybe not. I just wouldn't use it, and those who metaphorically want to ride bikes with the rest of us with their training wheels on probably shouldn't be belittled for it. Lightheartedly ribbed perhaps, but little more. After all, there is much I don't know about even basic concepts of philosophy so I may even find 1. (AI Summaries) of particular use. Who knows. Though the option to disable/hide any and all "appearances" of it personally to the individual user, is something I hope is a switchable option.

I can find it being noteworthy to point out the seemingly shifting attitude toward AI from the highest levels of TPF. Though perhaps this was in resignation and begrudging acceptance (similar to climate change) rather than an old-fashioned "change of heart." :smile:

You could (if that were the case) try a "Luddites' Corner", for people preferring specifically human to human dialectic? — bongo fury

I don't imagine @Jamal being on board with this. Despite it sounding conceptually interesting. What would it categorically represent? Wouldn't it just divide discussions away from their intended category into an effective "second Lounge?" :chin:

1. AI Summaries (Topic Summaries)
4. AI Bot
5. Post Editing Assistant
6. AI Autofill / Autocomplete — Outlander

NOTE: I'd like everyone to know that I have not decided on which features to use, so we may not have these features turned on at the new TPF. I just reported on what was available in the AI plugin and expressed some tentative views.

Out of interest, and I'm not holding my breath, but I don't suppose there is any chance at all of turning particular buttons on or off in particular categories? — bongo fury

A.I. features can be restricted to certain groups, so I could conceivably make it available only to those who ask for it, by creating a group called ... whatever the opposite of Luddites is.

But I'd prefer to turn features off for everyone, rather than dividing the membership like that. People can always use their LLMs independently, just as they always do.

whatever the opposite of Luddites is — Jamal

Technophile.

:up:

How does it not become a form of arguing on the basis of authority? — Paine

The question that just doesn't go away. :up:
It came up explicitly in the exchange beginning with , but was never addressed or even acknowledged. It is the old difficulty of those who won't admit that they are relying on an authority at all.

In other words, it's not for doing philosophy...

We can turn all those features off, but some of them are too useful. Those who don't like the encroachment of AI might not like the "Summarize topic" feature, but I actually think it'll be good. People are often too lazy to read a whole discussion before commenting, and sometimes it's so long that nobody is going to do it. In those cases its better that they have an idea of what's been said than no idea at all, no? — Jamal

Maybe, but if users are regularly relying on AI summaries of threads then we will inevitably be using AI to do philosophy, at least on the assumption that interpreting a post or thread is philosophical work.

6. AI Autofill / Autocomplete
Offers context-aware writing suggestions to help users complete sentences or refine ideas as they type. — Jamal

As a programmer this is the only feature of Cursor that I use. I've never once asked it to generate code for me. I'm stubbornly old-fashioned.

↪Paine, ↪Hanover, you both presume an adversarial model of discourse. Now fun as that is, it might be interesting to explore other possibilities... — Banno

I don't suppose I could argue otherwise without using that model.

Maybe you could try your idea within an OP as an experimental clinic. I am having difficulty imagining what you have in mind.

I was looking at the ChatGPT function that allowed group discussions. Within that discussion, a participant can openly ask the AI to explain or to find resources.

Folk treat this as an "authority", but of course any authority here would be granted by the participants, not presumed. That is, if you disagree with the AI's response, then you could openly ask it for an alternate response, to ground your objection.

Might this serve to excrete the bullshit from a discussion? Perhaps. It might be interesting to try.

I am willing to see what happens on your ranch before trying it out on my cows.

If there were enough interest, we might try a discussion on ChatGPT to see what happens.

As a programmer this is the only feature of Cursor that I use. I've never once asked it to generate code for me. I'm stubbornly old-fashioned. — Michael

I'm not. I've used AI a lot for coding in the last couple of years, maybe because I've mostly left behind coding as a career. Using AI in this context can be frustrating but it ultimately saves time and avoids tedium. It's also a very direct and fast way of understanding the ways that LLMs get things wrong generally.

I haven't used Cursor though, just copilot and externally with DeepSeek and ChatGPT. I guess I'll end up trying Cursor to get it all integrated.

What I've enjoyed about using LLMs in coding is that I can quickly build small, clean applications with very few dependencies and no bloat.