SE has recently announced that sites can now request to enable a banner to warn about their policy on AI-generated content. However, we have not yet established a policy on how to deal with such content on Movies & TV SE.

My question is: How should we moderate posts that use AI to generate content?

Should we prohibit AI-generated content altogether, require citation for it, or adopt a different approach?

  • 2
    Is there really not an existing ban here?
    – Laurel
    Commented Jan 7 at 15:38
  • @Laurel No. I don't think this was discussed in meta before. I can't find a prior meta discussion on AI-generated content. Commented Jan 7 at 23:32
  • 2
    @Laurel There has always been the implicit ban of entirely made-up robot barf for simply being spam, a ban the entire network basically does (hickups due to weird SE company decisions last year notwithstanding). But it's good to have this on black and white explicitly.
    – Napoleon Wilson Mod
    Commented Jan 8 at 1:19
  • 1
    @NapoleonWilson I think there are a few sites on the network whose communities have decided against banning AI-generated content, or at least to be less strict than other sites about moderating it. The company has refused to impose a network-wide ban (theoretically due to different communities' stances, practically more likely to be due to company management stances), so indeed it's good to have this totally clear and have M&TV added to the list of sites that explicitly ban AI-generated content. Commented Jan 8 at 6:46

1 Answer 1


We should ban AI generated content altogether.

I can do no better than to quote an excellent similar response over on SF&F

I propose that we follow other network sites in banning AI-generated copy-pasted content. This stuff is (to use a technical term) dangerous bullshit. As you've noted, it looks plausible and well-written, but to an expert eye (sometimes even a non-expert but humanly intelligent eye) it's clearly nonsense. It's one of the facts of SE that people sometimes upvote incorrect answers that look plausible - not every voter has the expertise necessary to judge whether an answer is true or false. So if we allowed this stuff, we'd run the risk of getting upvoted answers that are not only incorrect but were never even written by anyone thinking they were correct - the computer-generated equivalent of shitposting.

If you see something that looks at first glance like an answer but to a knowledgeable eye is clearly nonsense, feel free to mod-flag it.

So yes, let's have none of this nonsense, and please be proactive in flagging apparently AI-generated posts. (I have very little experience with AI-generated text or how to tell if a post is AI-generated or not, but there are mod-only spaces where I can get advice from people smarter than me at this kind of thing. Let's not discuss publicly how to detect these posts, beyond the very simple criterion mentioned above, otherwise the people posting them might make them less easily detectable.)

Using AI as a tool to assist generating good quality content might be reasonable, in some cases. I'm not proposing (yet) an outright ban on any answers where any kind of help from AI was used. But using AI, or other tools, to generate a large quantity of answers, without regard to whether those answers are correct and actually answer the question on which they are posted, is not acceptable. Content copy-pasted directly from ChatGPT output must be attributed to its source, or risk falling afoul of plagiarism rules as well as new policies against ChatGPT specifically.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .