커뮤니티에서 AI 응답을 어떻게 처리하시나요?

Hello everyone!

I am wonder how other community managers handle AI responses in discussion and questions type categories.

Our current policy is that the usage of AI is okay as long as you validate the response.

After seeing some responses like this for example, I am starting to think I want to create a more strict policy against AI.

Good question, I’ll help you call the Slack API to post a message to a channel. Here’s how to do it:

Basic API Request

You’ll use the chat.postMessage endpoint. Here’s a simple example using curl:

curl -X POST https://slack.com/api/chat.postMessage \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_SLACK_TOKEN" \
  -d '{
    "channel": "C1234567890",
    "text": "Hello from the Slack API!"
  }'

Setup Steps

1. Get a Slack Token:

  • Go to Slack API: Applications | Slack
  • Create a new app or select an existing one
  • Navigate to “OAuth & Permissions”
  • Add the chat:write scope under “Bot Token Scopes”
  • Install/reinstall the app to your workspace
  • Copy the “Bot User OAuth Token” (starts with xoxb-)

2. Get the Channel ID:

  • Right-click on a channel in Slack → “View channel details”
  • The channel ID is at the bottom (starts with C)
  • Or use the channel name like #general

Code Examples

Python:

import requests

url = "https://slack.com/api/chat.postMessage"
headers = {
    "Content-Type": "application/json",
    "Authorization": "Bearer YOUR_SLACK_TOKEN"
}
data = {
    "channel": "C1234567890",
    "text": "Hello from Python!"
}

response = requests.post(url, headers=headers, json=data)
print(response.json())

JavaScript (Node.js):

const axios = require('axios');

const url = 'https://slack.com/api/chat.postMessage';
const data = {
  channel: 'C1234567890',
  text: 'Hello from Node.js!'
};

axios.post(url, data, {
  headers: {
    'Content-Type': 'application/json',
    'Authorization': 'Bearer YOUR_SLACK_TOKEN'
  }
})
.then(response => console.log(response.data))
.catch(error => console.error(error));

Additional Options

You can enhance your message with:

  • Blocks for rich formatting
  • Attachments for structured data
  • Thread replies using thread_ts
  • Mentions like <@U12345678>

Would you like help with any specific programming language or more advanced message formatting?

Cheers, {user}!

While this may solve the problem, I could have asked AI myself to get this response. While the issue is not widespread yet I am concerned that we are losing the personality of each individual in the community. The great thing about community are the people in it and their unique ideas, thoughts, experiences and words.

Very curious on how other communities handle this! Please share your thoughts!

5개의 좋아요

My policy is don’t use AI to write or edit forum posts. Something like: we want to hear what you have to say, not what the AI has to say. It’s okay to paste in some AI text and then comment about what the AI wrote as long as you disclose that it’s AI above the AI content, for example:

“I asked ChatGPT about ___ and it said ___. Here’s what I think about what ChatGPT wrote.”

I carefully guard the quality of the content. I think that AI-generated content from 2025 will look dated in 10 years, kind of like how old movie effects don’t look passable any more.

If people are asking questions and AI is answering, why would they go to a forum instead of just asking ChatGPT? I think the main value in forums in the future is that you will be able to get answers from humans instead of bots.

8개의 좋아요

Great points @j127,

This is kinda where we were leaning towards as long as there’s context and the users words around the AI content.

I don’t want to look around in a few months and just see perfectly written AI responses everywhere in our forums so trying to get ahead of it now. Bring back the spelling mistakes :slight_smile:

4개의 좋아요

Here is one point to mindful of: discouraging such practices might drive potential new users away. A possible work around is to create a category for such and then just let them put the content there. This way the user feels they have contributed something of value, others can link to it if needed in other parts of the forum and users that are not interested in the AI post can skip the category and all of the links.

The posting of AI on user forums will be here going forward. I don’t see any norms for this within the next few years; similar to the question of the use of AI in formal education.


However with the new wave of AI, LLMs and diffusion, the only constant is change so my reply on this is not to be seen as something carved in stone or something that I might even agree with in the future.

2개의 좋아요

It really depends right? In the example above, I would be upset at the poster if the answer had clear incorrectness - especially incorrectness that would lead readers to greater issues. I’m ok with people posting AI responses if they’ve also taken the time to validate and verify the appropriateness and correctness of the information. Even better if they agree the generated content is similar to, or better than, how they would share this information anyway.

If, on the other hand, you’ve just thrown something into an LLM, copy-pasted the answer, and expect me as a reader of your topic to figure out if that content is correct, then I’m not going to be happy. Not only are you wasting my time by presenting false information as correct, but you’re also reducing the trustworthiness of the community in general - or at least your own future responses.

Looking forward, I suspect many good intending people will move away from using LLMs in forums over the next few years, and those remaining will be bad actors, or people who just don’t get forums in the first place. It’s purely anecdotal, but I’ve used LLMs daily for about 2 years now, and I’m moving more and more towards self generated content. Yesterday I wanted to write a blog post that I wasn’t super invested in. I decided to try gpt, but it no matter what I did, it always sounded like gpt and I hated that. So I tried Claude, and despite working with it for an hour, the content never sounded like something written by a real living person. So after about 3 hours total, I tore everything up and wrote it myself in about an hour.

The point of that story is to say - at least for me - self generated content is showing itself to be more and more rewarding no matter how good the models get. I really hope other people using LLMs also get to that stage in the next 2-3 years. If that happens, AI responses in forums will only be from bad actors, or people with good intentions who don’t know any better. Either way that situation makes the content much easier to handle: you can ban the bad actors, educate those with good intentions, and have a moderation policy of “ai content is banned, except if you’ve clearly digested the content you are posting AND fully agree that its contents represents your opinion and understanding about the matter AND the content expresses your opinion in an equal or more digestible manner than you would generate yourself.” or something along those lines.


p.s. I really like this perspective:

I didn’t immediately agree with it, but after a bit of thought I can totally see this being the case.

6개의 좋아요

AI 응답을 볼 때 일반적으로 약간 불안한 마음이 들고, 게시한 사용자가 다음 중 하나에 해당할 때는 훨씬 더 그렇습니다:

  • AI 출처를 밝히지 않는 경우
  • 그대로 복사해서 붙여넣는 경우

하지만 정말로 괜찮지 않은 것은 완전히 AI가 생성한 게시물이 '해결됨’으로 표시되는 것입니다. 솔직히, 해결상의 공은 AI에게 돌아가야 합니다… 아니면 아예 해결상으로 표시하지 않고, 그냥 '좋아요’와 감사 인사만 하는 게 좋겠습니다.


여기에 한 가지를 더 덧붙이자면, OP(질문자)가 AI 응답을 원했다면 그냥 ChatGPT에게 물어보면 됐을 것입니다. 동료 인간들에게 질문한 것에 대해 AI로 생성된 내용으로 답변할 필요가 없거든요.

3개의 좋아요

여기 정말 훌륭한 답변들이 많네요. 이 특정 사례에서는 AI가 순수하게 전술적인(tactical) 용도로 유용하다고 생각합니다. 따라서 커뮤니티에 질문을 던지거나 회원들의 답변을 요청할 때는 '전술적’인 부분과 '감정적’인 부분을 구분하여 고려해야 합니다. 커뮤니티 구조에 따라 ‘방법론(How-to)’ 질문을 위한 전용 공간과 동료 간 연결을 위한 별도의 공간이 있을 수 있습니다. ‘방법론’ 공간은 운영자의 실수를 방지하기 위해 AI의 활용이 허용되거나 권장될 수 있는 곳입니다. :slight_smile: 커뮤니티 공간 안에서 이러한 균형을 유지하는 것은 매우 훌륭하며, 회원들이 계속 돌아오게 만드는 핵심 요소이기도 합니다.

2개의 좋아요

저는 Discourse가 이미 ‘how-to’ 섹션(ask.discourse.com)을 갖추고 있다고 생각합니다. 실제로 이는 사용자가 스스로 활용할 수 있는 Discourse 내 최고의 AI 도구입니다. 이를 통해 사용자는 누군가에게 대신 처리해 달라고 요청할 필요가 없습니다. 나머지 공간은 ‘피어(peer)’ 공간이어야 하며, 여기서 인간들이 상호작용하고, 답변을 제공하기보다 더 많은 질문을 하고, 여기저기서 진실을 조금씩 끄집어내기 위해 기꺼이 의견 충돌을 빚어야 합니다.

여기서 아름답게 표현된 대로 말하자면:

아마도 사람들은 특별한 상황이 발생했을 때 커뮤니티 공간에 찾아올 것입니다. 문제의 해결책이 발견되기 전에 많은 질문이 오갈 가능성이 큽니다. 예를 들어 어떤 버전을 사용하는지, 이것저것을 시도해 보았는지 등입니다. 때로는 다른 사용자들로부터 공감의 느낌을 받을 수 있다면 그것은 훌륭합니다. AI는 질문을 하지 않으며, 우리가 때때로 얼마나 멍청한지(예: Meta에서: Discourse를 다시 빌드해 보셨나요? 안전 모드를 시도해 보셨나요?)에 대한 직관도 없습니다. 아무리 듣기 좋더라도 AI의 공감은 분명히 가짜입니다.

따라서 AI 콘텐츠가 다수를 차지하는 응답을 처리하는 제 방식은 아마도 이를 금지하고, 사용자가 쉽게 스스로 문제를 해결할 수 있도록 AI 봇을 구현하는 것이 될 것입니다.

1개의 좋아요