I think we can all agree in principle that AI generated text has no real place here in Worldbuilding, with the possible exception of queries about AI in a fictional world context, and now that we've had some examples of purportedly AI generated answers, I think it might be a good time to evaluate not how useful the policy is, but rather how effective the means are of enforcing it.
This answer was deleted by Monty Wild on the suspicion that it is AI generated. On the surface of it, that's just fine. Moderators have the duty and right to delete queries and responses that violate the policy. However. Just for laughs and giggles, I decided to try out a few of the AI text scanners available and found some contradictory findings. These are all commonly used detectors, and are used in other platforms where AI generated text content is frowned upon.
My concern here is not with the policy and not with its enforcement per se, but rather with the means by which the policy is enforced. How many detectors did Monty use? What should policy enforcement look like from the perspective of conflicting or inconclusive evidence? Going forward, how would cases such as this particular answer be dealt with given the nature of the evidence?
Dare I even bring up the considerations of possible ulterior motives (such as an experiment to see if a text can be tweaked sufficiently to either pass as human or deliberately return a false positive / false negative / false ambiguous)?
I went back to review the same author's other response to the same query, which was also deleted, and ran that text through all three detectors. That text came back as unanimously human generated.
Screenshots from the three detector sites I reviewed with the same text:
zerogpt.com returned a score of 0% AI
copyleaks.com returned an ambivalent result:
sapling.ai returned a score of 0% AI
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, I decided to run my own query here through the same three detectors and got a very slightly inconclusive result myself from one detector: