Content Creation Ethical to Pay AI Posters?

[Jason]

I don't mean AI bots, but people making posts using their name, that they obviously didn't make.

 

[Ravenfreak]

Do you mean people using AI to help write posts? I think it's okay for someone to use AI sparingly if they need help writing a response. I never used it myself to write posts, everything I write is organic and comes straight from my fingertips. That's not to say anyone using AI for their posts is wrong, I just choose not to do so.

 

[Jason]

Do you mean people using AI to help write posts? I think it's okay for someone to use AI sparingly if they need help writing a response. I never used it myself to write posts, everything I write is organic and comes straight from my fingertips. That's not to say anyone using AI for their posts is wrong, I just choose not to do so.

Yeah, but sometimes the posts are "too good" and glaringly fake.

 

[Nomad]

Why should you pay someone for a post that he did not create?

 

[Uncrowned]

It is a hard subject to handle as simply figuring out what posts are human-made, what ones are aided with AI, and what ones are fully AI is quite a challenge that even most major tech companies are failing at solving. Would I pay someone "to post AI topics and posts"? No. But if the topics and posts are good quality and not copied from other places, then I can't say I'd even need to try and figure out if the poster used AI.

 

[Arantor]

If you pay someone for a number of posts, you’re paying for outcome. Unless you condition the outcome with “no AI”, it’s fair game.

Whether that’s ethical without the condition is a different question: the implication you could draw is “I’m paying for posts to encourage engagement, they should be honest and human“ but unless you make it clear this is the intent (to imply the outcome you want), it’s *fine*.

In the same way, if you pay for “20 posts”, the person could reply to 20 topics with the word “sausages” and that would be *fine* in theory. Because unless otherwise specified, you haven’t qualified what the 20 posts should contain, what is acceptable, what is not.

Whether AI is permitted or not is no different. If you then say “no AI” and they sneak it past you, that *is* unethical and not in accordance with the terms of the agreement made - if you can prove AI was used against your instruction…

 

[Shortie]

I am not against using AI to get ideas for posts or even replies but I feel if someone uses AI, it should be done as a guideline and you should make the post in your own words to make it unique.

I would not feel happy hiring someone to post who was copying and pasting AI-generated content.

 

[Darth Cognus]

I guess it's a fair play but I know if I was interacting with straight up chatbots I'd be gone and I think any member who values their time would agree. Maybe I've dealt with too much chatbot spam but few things come off more lacking soul than that. "Back in my day we'd use forums to talk to other people..."

 

[Kale]

Do you mean people using AI to help write posts? I think it's okay for someone to use AI sparingly if they need help writing a response. I never used it myself to write posts, everything I write is organic and comes straight from my fingertips. That's not to say anyone using AI for their posts is wrong, I just choose not to do so.

I have used it a few times on my own forum and another one just to mess around.

 

[Dewlance]

I read the terms of some AI services, and they clearly said that articles or messages generated by their AI should be used for personal use only and should not be published on your website.

You can get ideas from AI-generated content, but there is no need to pay for it if it is written by AI.

 

[Arantor]

I guarantee something as trite as a TOS will not stop such people using such material in such a way.