A couple of days ago, Stack Exchange Inc., the company running these sites, announced a new policy for handling AI content. 
This policy goes against our own, local policy on how to deal with AI content, where the U&L community made it _very_ clear that such content was not welcome: https://meta.askubuntu.com/q/20209/85695

I am writing this post to make sure that the Ask Ubuntu community is aware of this new network-wide policy and to provide a place where we can discuss it and maybe decide how to handle it. The full text of the new policy can be read below:

> We recently performed a set of analyses on the current approach to
> AI-generated content moderation. The conclusions of these analyses
> strongly indicate to us that AI-generated content is not being
> properly identified across the network, and that the potential for
> false-positives is very high. Through no fault of moderators' own, we
> also suspect that there have been biases for or against residents of
> specific countries as a potential result of the heuristics being
> applied to these posts. Finally, internal evidence strongly suggests
> that the overapplication of suspensions for AI-generated content may
> be turning away a large number of legitimate contributors to the site.
> 
> In order to help mitigate the issue, we've asked moderators to apply a
> very strict standard of evidence to determining whether a post is
> AI-authored when deciding to suspend a user. This standard of evidence
> excludes the use of moderators' best guesses based on users' writing
> styles and behavioral indicators, because we could not validate that
> these indicators are actually successfully identifying AI-generated
> posts when they are written. This standard would exclude most
> suspensions issued to date.
> 
> We've also identified that current GPT detectors have an unacceptably
> high false positive rate for content on our network and should not be
> regarded as reliable indicators of GPT authorship. While these aren't
> the sole tools that moderators rely upon to identify AI-generated
> content, some of the heuristics used have been developed with their
> assistance.
> 
> We've reminded moderators that suspensions (and typically mod messages
> as well) are for real, verifiable malfeasance only, and should not be
> enacted on the basis of hunches, guesses, intuition, or unverified
> heuristics. Therefore, we are not confident that either GPT detectors
> or best-guess heuristics can be used to definitively identify
> suspicious content for the purposes of suspension.
> 
> As always, moderators who identify that a user has a problematic
> pattern of low-quality posts should continue to act on such users as
> they otherwise would. Indicators moderators currently use to determine
> that a post was authored with the help of AI can in some cases form a
> reliable set of indicators that the content quality may be poor, and
> moderators should feel free to review posts as such. If someone is
> repeatedly contributing low-quality content, we already have policies
> in place to help handle it, including a suspension reason that can, in
> those cases, be used.