User talk:Daniel: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:17, 26 December 2024 editJesuspaul502 (talk \| contribs)185 edits →Addressing Baseless Accusations and Unfounded Disruption Claims: new sectionTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:27, 26 December 2024 edit undoDaniel (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,696 edits Undid revision 1265289800 by Jesuspaul502 (talk) Write me a message specific to what I have written (not others), or take this to another venue other than my talkpage.Tag: Undo Next edit →
Line 31:		Line 31:
	::::::In response to your fairness objection, I think it's wrong to knowingly assist in calibration of such models. We don't feed trolls, we shouldn't tutor AIs. ] (]) 00:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)		::::::In response to your fairness objection, I think it's wrong to knowingly assist in calibration of such models. We don't feed trolls, we shouldn't tutor AIs. ] (]) 00:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	\|}		\|}

	== Addressing Baseless Accusations and Unfounded Disruption Claims ==

	Hi Daniel, BusterD, and others,

	I find the continued baseless accusations and personal attacks regarding my edits disappointing and completely unwarranted. Let me address your points clearly:

	1. AI Detector Speculations: Relying on unreliable AI detection tools to make accusations is absurd. These tools are far from conclusive, and using them as "evidence" to judge my contributions undermines the very principles of fairness and verifiability that Misplaced Pages stands for. If you claim otherwise, present concrete evidence instead of resorting to speculative percentages.

	2. User Page Misinterpretation: Referring to my earlier user page to justify your assumptions shows a lack of critical thinking. A user page reflects interests or experiences—it’s not a sworn affidavit of how edits are made. Making wild leaps from that to accusations of "AI trolling" only damages your credibility.

	3. Disruption Allegations: Calling me a “troll” and framing my efforts to contribute constructively as disruptive is not only unfair but also contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. If you’re so confident in these allegations, explain how my edits specifically harm Misplaced Pages’s goals instead of hiding behind vague accusations.

	4. Respect and Professionalism: I’ve engaged respectfully and constructively, yet I’m met with dismissive remarks like "we don’t tutor AIs" and calls for blocking. Is this the standard of discourse Misplaced Pages administrators and editors promote? It’s disappointing, to say the least.

	I expect those involved to review their conduct and reconsider these baseless accusations. This kind of behavior is what actually disrupts Misplaced Pages’s collaborative environment. I suggest we focus on improving content rather than indulging in unnecessary witch hunts. ] (]) 05:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:27, 26 December 2024

Archives edit

101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110

111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform"

Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything

Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject

In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case

From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting?

Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality

Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies

Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols

Traffic report: Was a long and dark December

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Question About Formal Tone and AI Concerns

Hi Daniel,

I just wanted to ask, does using a formal tone in my responses mean I'm using AI? I’ve been trying to keep my responses clear and respectful, but I didn’t realize that could be seen as AI-generated.

Is it a problem to write in a more formal style here, or does that automatically raise concerns about using AI? I'm just trying to understand what's expected.

Thanks for your input! JESUS (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Two (out of two I checked) of your posts came up as 90% AI-written according to the AI detector I used (which is falliable, but that's such a coincidence). Further, the subheadings that you used were distinctive of AI-generated messages. I still believe you were using AI to generate those two messages. (By contrast, this message registers 0%.) Daniel (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, this. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

What's the current guidance on blocking AI trolling, which this clearly is? BusterD (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel good about feeding back the "tells" either ("subheadings") BusterD (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no automatic prohibition in project-space, so it needs to be judged through the lens of general disruption. The use of subheadings is both a tell but also part of the disruptive nature of LLM-generated projectspace postings, so I don't think it's fair to say "you're being disruptive" but not explain how it's disruptive. Daniel (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

In response to your fairness objection, I think it's wrong to knowingly assist in calibration of such models. We don't feed trolls, we shouldn't tutor AIs. BusterD (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)