We do roll out privileges gradually here for a few reasons - (A) It slows down spam, since it's almost impossible for a spammer to get 50 rep before they are nuked, (B) it introduces you to features of the site slowly, so that you learn how to use them before you gain more privileges. For instance, you've now found that the main site isn't the right place to post questions about the main site ;-). We have Meta (as do all SE sites) for that.

Right, if you found a question here that addresses your question, and you have an answer, then that's the perfect opportunity to post an answer to it. If you found an answer that needs more information, you can propose an Edit to it. Or, if your situation was slightly different, then you can post your own question (explaining why it's different from the other one you found) along with your own answer, that you can then (after a small waiting period) even self-accept. That's actually a very Linux-style approach to open-information-sharing, IMHO.

@endolith Agreed - It's odd sometimes the settings it just "makes up".

If we're going to "ban" ChatGPT here, it needs to be clear where the "line" is in terms of what is acceptable and what is not.

@terdon As I mentioned in AUGR, you and I (and others) are in agreement on this, but it still does have to be stated explicitly, unfortunately, since there are those who do want to ban all use of ChatGPT, regardless of whether the usage is "assistance" or "generate/write." You are also correct that the use of AI is very difficult to detect in these cases unless disclosed. And we should encourage users to disclose the use of ChatGPT in these cases without fear of being banned (as long as the usage is "responsible").

@MrPotatoHead I do agree with that overall, but at this stage it might be safer to leave the wording as "should not be used to write ..." to prevent the misuse we are starting to see. For instance, one user posted 13 answers in the span of two hours yesterday; clearly not vetting them. However if, as we both agree should happen, a SME vets the output and explains that (and likely how) they did so, then I think they (can) ultimately transform it into their answer.

In case you aren't familiar with it, we usually use Raiders of the Lost Downboat (link to Meta post) to assist with content moderation issues. There are several bots running in the room already to identify potentially troublesome content, and a few mods (but not all -- Would love to see more!) that visit on a regular basis. If you spot a potential problem with ChatGPT content (or any other content) feel free to hop in and discuss.

@Levente "If the policy was total ban, then they could make an attempt at using automation for it." I see it the other way around -- The only detectable answers from ChatGPT would be those that were copy/paste/no-verify in the first place.

@UtkarshChandraSrivastava I would say that's one of the more benign and yet beneficial uses. Did you read the two questions from my other answer. I'm not saying that it should be used for minor improvements, but if there's a "wall of text" with limited (or bad) punctuation like in one of the questions I modified, then ChatGPT is a timesaver (again, requiring human verification of accuracy) in improving these posts. Grammar issues may be due to language barriers and accessibility issues. ChatGPT can help users overcome those.

@Levente But doesn't a total ban on it have the same impact on Mod (and community) policing?