Do LLM-generated responses deserve a mention in posting guidelines?

Hi all,

Keeping it short(-ish):

  • I think that generated responses are inherently unreliable because of how LLMs work. (They’re language models, statistically good at putting words together, not at attributing meaning to those words.)
  • It seems to me that most people posting generated responses do it precisely when they don’t know the topic enough to provide a response of their own. (From a limited view of the forum, admittedly, and a limited knowledge of the folks involved.)
  • All forum reponses are to some extent unreliable (because we’re all limited humans), but LLM-generated responses sound confident in a way thay makes them more misleading. (Some of us are better than other at sounding truthworthy, and LLMs are really good at it!)

The issue I have with that:

  • Anyone can prompt an LLM for a response.
  • So a forum full of those is not better than no forum at all, we could go to our favorite LLMs instead.
  • Low quality responses like the seemingly non-vetted LLM-generated text that I’ve seen so far in the forum do dilute any useful responses in the forum, lowering its value.

Why I think a mention somewhere that discourages posting LLM-generated responses may be worth it:

  • Given the massive marketing effort behind the major LLMs, many folks are bound to believe they’re a good source of information, and that posting some of that in the forum is helpful.
  • I believe a significant proportion of those folks are more interested in being helpful than in posting LLM-generated text per-se.
  • So I’m thinking that maybe a reminder that posting LLM-generated content is not helpful may make them reconsider.

Does that prevent anyone from, for example, using LLMs to make the wording of their response more natural for fluent English readers? No, and that is not the intention of such a mention in the guidelines. (Unlike relying on LLMs for technical advice, using them for stylistic advice plays on the LLM strenghts and can actually be helpful.)

That’s me, for consideration. :slightly_smiling_face:

5 Likes

I personally don’t really care, if someone believes an LLM response has value, I think they should be allowed to post it. They should just clearly mark the response as AI, and then it’s up to the reader how they want to use it.

https://forum.qubes-os.org/t/anti-evil-maid-coreboot-heads/21127/7

I think that is a good example of how to use AI generated answers.

I don’t disagree with AI answers can be low quality, but so can human answers. There is no content policing on the forum, people are free to try and guess the answer or give heavily biased answers, I don’t feel AI is worse.

4 Likes

Similar thread:

2 Likes

I think we add replies noting that when we suspect, but there is little beyond that that we can do. It’s very hard to make things visible to users. @adw has enough experience already trying to guide useful issues on Github. In short, I’d say it’s close to impossible to do it in a preventative manner (i.e. make thebuser see it before posting) and the only way to tackle it is through user education after someone posts an LLM-generated response.

To give everyone an idea of how misinformed LLMs are when it comes to Qubes OS, here’s the output of deepseek-r1 to the question “Do you know what Qubes OS is?”:

Do you know what Qubes OS is?
The LLM’s Response My Comments
<think>
Alright, so I’m trying to understand this question about Qubes OS. First off, I’ve heard of Qubes before in the context of privacy and security, but I’m not entirely sure what it is or how it works. Well, at least it’s honest about it…
The user mentioned that it’s a distro based on Debian and uses UEFI, so maybe it’s focused on providing a secure environment. WRONG! Qubes OS is based on Xen, and dom0 is based on Fedora. It uses both Legacy Boot and UEFI…
Okay, let me start by breaking down the components they mentioned: QubesOS 4.0 and QubesOS-Lite. When the hell did I mention those?!?!!?
They said these are based on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS but built using the Qubes source code with UEFI support. Are you high right now? When did I ever say that? I think you’re putting words in my mouth…
I know that Ubuntu is known for being user-friendly and secure, Are you sure about the “secure” part?
so adding UEFI probably enhances that aspect. Yeah, if you’re Microsoft, maybe…
I’m also curious about the improvements over previous versions like QubesOS 3.x or the Beta version of QubesOS-Lite. Don’t you know how to check a website? Isn’t that ALL you do?!?!?!
Maybe these updates include better performance, new features, or bug fixes? Why yes, they include all of these
Since the user didn’t provide specific details on what’s improved, I’ll have to think generally about what such an OS might offer. Well, now you’re just being lazy. That’s my job…
The fact that it’s available via ISO and PPA suggests it can be easily installed from a USB drive or through a distro repository. Qubes OS via PPA?!?!?! You serious right now!?!?!?
That makes it more accessible for users who prefer self-updating systems or are using dual-boot setups. Word salad! You gaslighter, you!
I wonder how QubesOS compares to other distros, like LUKS or GRUB with UEFI enabled. Bruh, they’re not actually “distros”. You’ve got no idea…
What unique features does it offer that make it stand out? Maybe encryption, isolate user accounts from the kernel, or specific tools aimed at security professionals? “Isolate user accounts from the kernel”? WHAT?!?!?!?! :rofl:
Also, since the user mentioned it’s used by security professionals and has a command-line interface, When the hell did I mention that!?!?!?!
I’m guessing there are scripts or automation tools available. Odd assumption, but you’re actually right…
How does this OS handle user authentication and session management to ensure security? Why are you asking me? I’m the one who’s asking you!
Another thought: with UEFI support, what kind of hardware compatibility issues might arise? Absolutely none at all if your BIOS supports UEFI :expressionless:
Does QubesOS-Lite provide fallback mechanisms for systems that don’t natively support UEFI? I wasn’t asking about QubesOS-Lite (which is actually called LITEQUBE)
I should also consider the community around Qubes OS. Eyyyyyy!!! Good answer :sunglasses:
Is there an active forum or repository where users discuss experiences and troubleshooting? You’re damn right there is! :smiley:
How do they feel about its performance compared to other distros with similar security features? There are no distros with “similar security features” :sunglasses:
Lastly, are there any limitations when using QubesOS-Lite in dual-boot setups, like limited file systems or disk space restrictions? Bro, you’re talking like you’re trying to get a raise from HR :rofl:
Understanding the practical aspects would help determine if it’s a viable alternative for everyday use alongside other operating systems.
</think>
Cue the clueless CEO to shout “Youre HIRED!” :rofl:
<response>
Qubes OS is an experimental distribution based on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS and built using the Qubes source code with UEFI support.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
It offers enhanced security features, including improved performance, new capabilities, and bug fixes compared to its predecessors like QubesOS 3.x or Beta QubesOS-Lite. So “improved performance” is now categorised as an “enhanced security feature”? This changes everything…
Key improvements may include better system performance, additional features tailored for security professionals, and potential bug fixes that enhance stability and reliability. Tell me you’ve never used Qubes OS without telling me you’ve never used Qubes OS…
QubesOS is available via ISO and PPA, making it easy to install on various devices, including those with UEFI support. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The command-line interface (CLI) suggests the inclusion of scripts and automation tools designed for security professionals, facilitating efficient system management and security tasks. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
With UEFI support, QubesOS-Lite aims to enhance hardware compatibility by providing fallback mechanisms for systems that do not natively support UEFI. Oh my god, that’s the exact opposite of what UEFI does… :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
While primarily targeted at security professionals, Who the hell told you that? Where on the Qubes OS website does it say that?
Qubes OS may also offer features beneficial to general users seeking a secure environment. That’s the most accurate thing you’ve said so far…
The distribution likely includes robust user authentication and session management to ensure security across all environments it supports. Yeah, sure, why not, let’s go with that…
The community around Qubes OS is active, with forums and repositories providing resources for troubleshooting and discussions about its performance in dual-boot setups. Everything about the dual-boot setups is true.
However, practical use cases may reveal limitations regarding file system compatibility or disk space restrictions when used alongside other operating systems. may? Is an LLM seriously bullsh*tting me right now? :rofl:
Overall, Qubes OS appears to be a specialized distribution catering to those who prioritize security and stability above everyday user needs.
</response>
So it’s implying that everyday users don’t need security and stability. Good to know… :rofl:

There is sooo much of that that’s inaccurate, it’s made everyone dumber just by reading it…


LLM responses stand out very easily, but @deeplow is right. We don’t live in a world like in the movie Minority Report. You can’t really do anything about anything that hasn’t happened yet.

For the most part, they are entertaining, but they do have the potential to seriously misinform someone into some pretty dire security blunders…

Either way, the way the mods are dealing with bots so far has been working well enough, and I commend them for it.