<p>On Kaggle, recently there is a person who's been answering questions with what is likely customized AI.  It's not Chat GPT, but probably something more boutique / hand rolled, and possibly a result of a number of different contests which have been created to solve similar q/a problems on Kaggle.  This is an extremely well studied / well understood problem on Kaggle.</p>
<p>It's probably not just all AI but it's also likely the user is supplementing the material as well, via either more detailed prompts or just directly editing the material.  They are clearly an expert in this field.</p>
<p>What's sort of cool about what they're doing lately is that they're starting to answer questions deep in the weeds.  For example, they'll find a notebook that's been barely looked at by anyone and give deep and voluminous (and accurate!) feedback.</p>
<p>It's a combination of Q/A and summary generation, but this is absolutely not upvote grubbing behavior.  They are already a GM with a huge number of gold medals and these postings will only marginally benefit their standing.   It's someone who's playtesting their AI and trying to help folks in the community at the same time.</p>
<p>Let me be clear - the answers are actually quite good and they've been getting a number of gold medals for their postings.   I frequently upvote the best ones myself.   However, I am somewhat concerned that they are not being entirely transparent about how the content is being generated.</p>
<p>I know there is a ban on posting ChatGPT answers.  I personally think Chat GPT should be allowed - but only if it's carefully cited / credited.  Other than that, I agree people shouldn't be allowed to plagiarise, which I think is a terribly immoral activity.  This goes for Chat GPT or any source material.</p>
<p>But what about something that is the effort of effective Human-AI collaboration?  An expert working intelligently with AI that has been trained carefully to answer questions in a particular domain?</p>
<p>I personally think if they cite that AI helped generate the answer it should be allowed.  Because of the cite, the answers will get careful scrutiny.  If the answers are awful, the user's credibility will suffer.  If the answers are good, more questions will get answered and we'll have an interesting chance to see what Human/AI collaboration is capable of.  AI developers will also have a chance to better train and test their toolsets.</p>
<p>Of course, you could try to enforce a policy of just banning the answers completely, but given what I'm seeing out there lately - good luck with that.</p>
