[SC - Defeated] Liberate Alterante (0cala)

Status
Not open for further replies.
For absolute f***'s sake. Why are we seriously considering allowing someone who's been proven to use generative AI pass something without having any consequences first? Be better. Against.
 
Hulldom:
For absolute f***'s sake. Why are we seriously considering allowing someone who's been proven to use generative AI pass something without having any consequences first? Be better. Against.
Click to expand...
Though I voted against the proposal as well, I find this to be quite the exaggeration. "Use of generative AI" is not some kind of felony, and 0cala removed the sections of her GA draft which were generated by it anyways. Should she have been up front about it in the first place? Yes. Is this a proportionate reaction? No. Reasonable people can disagree over what extent to which the use of AI is acceptable, but this (in addition to the overblown reactions of some others) is a bizarre, over the top rationale for... retribution, I guess? for what is ultimately quite a minor mistake.
 
Comfed:
Though I voted against the proposal as well, I find this to be quite the exaggeration. "Use of generative AI" is not some kind of felony, and 0cala removed the sections of her GA draft which were generated by it anyways. Should she have been up front about it in the first place? Yes. Is this a proportionate reaction? No. Reasonable people can disagree over what extent to which the use of AI is acceptable, but this (in addition to the overblown reactions of some others) is a bizarre, over the top rationale for... retribution, I guess? for what is ultimately quite a minor mistake.
Click to expand...
Don't listen to that mad man raving with bad words on this forum.
 
Hulldom:
For absolute f***'s sake. Why are we seriously considering allowing someone who's been proven to use generative AI pass something without having any consequences first? Be better. Against.
Click to expand...
The generative AI is the least of my problems with this. The author's attitude, including throwing a tantrum at the other authors, makes me very unwilling to support this particular version.
 
Voted Against.

I have read through the discussion for this proposal on the SC forums and I simply cannot endorse the manner of some of the author's comments by voting in favour; doing so would go against my personal beliefs in regards to how authors should communicate in the Security Council. Therefore, though I am impartial to the linguistic quality of the proposal and acknowledge that the functional intentions of both proposals are identical, I prefer the alternative based on a balancing of those factors.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top