by The Ice States » Fri May 19, 2023 3:44 pm
by United Calanworie » Fri May 19, 2023 3:55 pm
by The Ice States » Fri May 19, 2023 4:01 pm
United Calanworie wrote:The current stance of the Moderation team is that the usage of AI to generate WA/SC proposals does not qualify as an inherent plagiarism violation for the sole reason of using AI.
by United Calanworie » Fri May 19, 2023 4:08 pm
The Ice States wrote:United Calanworie wrote:The current stance of the Moderation team is that the usage of AI to generate WA/SC proposals does not qualify as an inherent plagiarism violation for the sole reason of using AI.
Could Moderation clarify the reasoning for this stance, if it is possible for that to be shared?
by Lareine Alpine » Fri May 19, 2023 4:20 pm
The Ice States wrote:Thread summary: would Moderation consider it plagiarism to submit WA proposals whose text is generated entirely or primarily by Chatgpt or another AI language model?
-----
Over the last weeks, we have seen a very significant proportion of WA proposals being substantially, if not entirely generated by Chatgpt or other AI language models. Just upon a quick review of the last 30 days, I can find not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but six proposals written entirely or primarily by an AI language model. That is not even counting AI-generated drafts posted to the forum, eg [1][2][3][4][5].
The problem with such proposals is two-fold. Firstly, people writing "their" proposals simply by copying text generated by an AI, rather than authors writing the text themselves, fundamentally degrades the fun and engaging nature of the WA, as players no longer have to do any real work to write their proposals. However, more importantly, it represents persons taking credit for work which is not theirs. Players should not get badges or the clout from authorship for work they did not do. Like submitting text from eg a Wikipedia article is (rightfully) considered plagiarism, I strongly believe that submitting AI-generated proposals ought to be considered plagarism, and thus illegal.
One counterargument against considering AI-generated WA proposals plagiarism is that the submitting author, presumably, was the one who entered the query to the AI. This logic is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, there is no real way to police who entered the query into the AI. It is often impossible to know whether the person who submitted the proposal in fact entered the query themselves, or asked a friend to enter a query into Chatgpt and then submitted it without their permission. However, more importantly, this does not apply to eg asking a friend to write a proposal and submitting without their permission, which is absolutely considered plagiarism. Why is it that for AI models whoever asked for the proposal is entitled to full credit for the proposal, but in all other cases they are not?
Another counterargument is that it is effectively impossible to accurately know whether an AI generated a proposal. This is a selective argument which does not apply to other rules which are likely harder to enforce, and also uncontroversial. There are probably infinite ways to violate the GA Branding rule; naming a committee the name of the author backwards, including an acrostic naming the author in the first letters of the clauses, including such an acrostic in the last letters, and so on. Yet the rule remains enforced. Likewise, if a proposal is plagiarised from some obscure internet website (CF: Wikipedia etc) or even some obscure physical book, that is still plagarism, even if it is very difficult to know if this happened. However, it is still not hard to run a proposal which looks AI-generated prima facie through a website such as Zerogpt, and see if it appears to be more than eg 50% AI-generated.
There has been no formal ruling on this matter by Moderation, and to that end I would like to request an explicit ruling on whether it is considered plagiarism to submit a WA proposal generated entirely or primarily by Chatgpt or another AI language model.
Thanks.
by The Ice States » Fri May 19, 2023 4:23 pm
United Calanworie wrote:The Ice States wrote:Could Moderation clarify the reasoning for this stance, if it is possible for that to be shared?
We've looked into what it would take to be able to determine whether or not a proposal was AI generated or not and came to the conclusion that there would be a lot of cases where it's "is this just a really shitty draft, or is it AI-written?"
So if the AI-written draft somehow miraculously doesn't plagiarize any other laws/papers/resolutions/whatever-have-you, but it's just real shit, we don't want to be in the business of determining whether or not it's shit that came out of a human's brain or shit that came out of an AI.
But obviously, if it does plagiarize from other laws/papers/resolutions/whatever, it's plagiarism, it doesn't matter that it was written by AI.
Lareine Alpine wrote:While the idea behind limiting or banning or repealing AI generated proposals is very much welcome and that I would agree with, I suspect it cannot constitute as plagiarism.
Plagiarism is copying of existing contents or ideas while as far as I know language models like GPT create unique human-written like text content...
by The United Penguin Commonwealth » Fri May 19, 2023 4:28 pm
One counterargument against considering AI-generated WA proposals plagiarism is that the submitting author, presumably, was the one who entered the query to the AI. This logic is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, there is no real way to police who entered the query into the AI. It is often impossible to know whether the person who submitted the proposal in fact entered the query themselves, or asked a friend to enter a query into Chatgpt and then submitted it without their permission.
However, more importantly, this does not apply to eg asking a friend to write a proposal and submitting without their permission, which is absolutely considered plagiarism. Why is it that for AI models whoever asked for the proposal is entitled to full credit for the proposal, but in all other cases they are not?
by Lareine Alpine » Fri May 19, 2023 4:31 pm
Copying AI content is copying the "existing contents or ideas" the AI creates. A university or school would, in the vast majority of cases, consider copying text from an AI for an assignment to be plagiarism; practical issues with enforcement are the more relevant argument against declaring copying AI text plagiarism.
by Barfleur » Fri May 19, 2023 5:34 pm
by Terminus Station » Fri May 19, 2023 5:48 pm
"What happens to a Communist when he/she is given the most work "according to their ability" but are given nothing in return "according to their needs?"
Being Trans is ok, gender isn't assigned.
-->BANNED FOR TROLLING NAZIS<--
by Wrapper » Fri May 19, 2023 5:55 pm
Just upon a quick review of the last 30 days, I can find not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but six proposals written entirely or primarily by an AI language model.
by The Ice States » Fri May 19, 2023 6:00 pm
Terminus Station wrote:i think AI generated WA proposals are a boon instead of a detriment. We could use it to improve current and future proposals or come up with ones that haven't been proposed yet. Unless you ask the AI to copy an existing proposal verbatim I dont see how it would fall under "plagiarism". As for copypasting a proposal written by the AI without modifications I dont see how thats an issue if the main objective of WA Proposals is to come up with new legislature, instead of say, an academic paper meant for submission.
Wrapper wrote:Just upon a quick review of the last 30 days, I can find not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but six proposals written entirely or primarily by an AI language model.
How can you even tell with near-100% certainty that these are AI written?
by Terminus Station » Fri May 19, 2023 6:00 pm
The Ice States wrote:Terminus Station wrote:i think AI generated WA proposals are a boon instead of a detriment. We could use it to improve current and future proposals or come up with ones that haven't been proposed yet. Unless you ask the AI to copy an existing proposal verbatim I dont see how it would fall under "plagiarism". As for copypasting a proposal written by the AI without modifications I dont see how thats an issue if the main objective of WA Proposals is to come up with new legislature, instead of say, an academic paper meant for submission.
Community engagement is also an important aspect of the WA. If people just get robots to write "their" proposals for them, that aspect is lost. Why bother learning about and crafting policy yourself when you can just get Chatgpt to do it for you?Wrapper wrote:How can you even tell with near-100% certainty that these are AI written?
AI written proposals have a very characteristic, repetivite writing style which is obvious in all of these proposals. Putting any of those through an AI text detector, eg [1] would show that they are AI-generated, besides obviously having the characteristic writing style AI texts have.
"What happens to a Communist when he/she is given the most work "according to their ability" but are given nothing in return "according to their needs?"
Being Trans is ok, gender isn't assigned.
-->BANNED FOR TROLLING NAZIS<--
by The Ice States » Fri May 19, 2023 6:03 pm
Terminus Station wrote:The Ice States wrote:Community engagement is also an important aspect of the WA. If people just get robots to write "their" proposals for them, that aspect is lost. Why bother learning about and crafting policy yourself when you can just get Chatgpt to do it for you?
AI written proposals have a very characteristic, repetivite writing style which is obvious in all of these proposals. Putting any of those through an AI text detector, eg [1] would show that they are AI-generated, besides obviously having the characteristic writing style AI texts have.
You have no idea what you're talking about do you?
by Makko Oko » Fri May 19, 2023 6:03 pm
The Ice States wrote:Wrapper wrote:How can you even tell with near-100% certainty that these are AI written?
AI written proposals have a very characteristic, repetivite writing style which is obvious in all of these proposals. Putting any of those through an AI text detector, eg [1] would show that they are AI-generated, besides obviously having the characteristic writing style AI texts have.
OBC Current News: First-Ever Anti-Terrorism Act Enacted | Emperor launches plans to expand trade | Danika Hicks Case: NOT GUILTY VERDICT! Court rules 3-2Information:
by Astrobolt » Fri May 19, 2023 6:07 pm
by Free Papua Republic » Fri May 19, 2023 6:08 pm
Port Daily - 2023/01/05 | Schouten Empress sank after departure from Manoekwari, 'millions' of liters of crude oil spilled into the biologically rich western region of Geelvink Bay, whistleblower blames 'shipping overcapacity to cut costs'
by Kenmoria » Fri May 19, 2023 6:50 pm
by Hannasea » Fri May 19, 2023 6:53 pm
The Ice States wrote:Players should not get badges or the clout from authorship for work they did not do.
Kenmoria wrote:I have been able to recognise the ChatGPTed proposals on the GA as being from ChatGPT, but this wasn’t a reliable, firm knowledge. I don’t think that I would be happy with a similar test of recognition being imposed as a basis for a violation of one of the most important rules for proposals. Looking back through the GA, a lot of proposals from very new nations, from younger players, strike me retrospectively as being akin to ChatGPT, though that is plainly impossible. I think that this is a matter where it is better to leave it to delegates having the common sense not to approve, and big regions having the common sense not to vote in favour of, AI-generated proposals.
Besides, most proposals written by ChatGPT break some rule or another anyway, because ChatGPT has no real knowledge of the GA. It frequently contradicts extant resolutions, does something beyond the scope of the GA’s power, or doesn’t write proposals with operative clauses. In my testing, it has also begun justifying its choice of clauses in the text of the proposal itself, arguably straying beyond the confines of a law. There doesn’t seem to me to be a need for a separate rule targeting ChatGPT.
by Flanderlion » Fri May 19, 2023 6:56 pm
by Simone Republic » Fri May 19, 2023 7:06 pm
by Wrapper » Fri May 19, 2023 7:19 pm
The Ice States wrote:AI written proposals have a very characteristic, repetivite writing style which is obvious in all of these proposals. Putting any of those through an AI text detector, eg [1] would show that they are AI-generated, besides obviously having the characteristic writing style AI texts have.
by Wallenburg » Fri May 19, 2023 8:44 pm
United Calanworie wrote:The current stance of the Moderation team is that the usage of AI to generate WA/SC proposals does not qualify as an inherent plagiarism violation for the sole reason of using AI. It is entirely possible for an AI proposal to violate the plagiarism rule through the way AI works, or for it to violate any number of other rules.
With that said, it's probably worth hearing more from the community.
by Querria » Fri May 19, 2023 8:46 pm
by Saor Alba » Fri May 19, 2023 9:29 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement