Greetings.

On 2023-04-19 21:20, vallor wrote:
> Is there a newsgroup where people
> are discussing AI prompts and results? (Such
> as: GPT4, DALL-E2, Bard, and so forth?)
>
> Thinking that, somewhere on the Usenet, there must be a
> discussion. comp.ai is moderated, and everywhere else
> on comp.ai seems inappropriate.

What does the moderation status of comp.ai have to do with it? I
moderate that group and welcome any on-topic posts consistent with the
charter:

> comp.ai is a moderated forum for announcements, reports, enquiries
> and discussions about the theory, practice, history and
> state-of-the-art of artificial intelligence. Its scope is AI in
> general, but it is not intended to be a forum for postings concerning
> areas of AI for which specialized subgroups exist, unless they have a
> clear wider relevance. Announcements of conferences, books, other
> publications, researches, applications, educational programs, and
> other happenings are relevant, as are those of AI positions available
> and non-commercial AI software.

Regards,
Tristan

--
Dr.-Ing. Tristan Miller, Research Scientist
Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence (OFAI)
Freyung 6/6, 1010 Vienna, Austria | Tel: +43 1 5336112 12
https://logological.org/ | https://punderstanding.ofai.at/

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:27:25 +0200, Tristan Miller wrote:

> Greetings.
>
> On 2023-04-19 21:20, vallor wrote:
>> Is there a newsgroup where people are discussing AI prompts and
>> results? (Such as: GPT4, DALL-E2, Bard, and so forth?)
>>
>> Thinking that, somewhere on the Usenet, there must be a discussion.
>> comp.ai is moderated, and everywhere else on comp.ai seems
>> inappropriate.
>
>
> What does the moderation status of comp.ai have to do with it? I
> moderate that group and welcome any on-topic posts consistent with the
> charter:
>
>> comp.ai is a moderated forum for announcements, reports, enquiries and
>> discussions about the theory, practice, history and state-of-the-art of
>> artificial intelligence. Its scope is AI in general, but it is not
>> intended to be a forum for postings concerning areas of AI for which
>> specialized subgroups exist, unless they have a clear wider relevance.
>> Announcements of conferences, books, other publications, researches,
>> applications, educational programs, and other happenings are relevant,
>> as are those of AI positions available and non-commercial AI software.
>
>
> Regards,
> Tristan

Take a look in c.a.s: I made a post there
of the text of a conversation with GPT4. There are
two versions of the answer, one is just the default
output, and the next was after asking it to rephrase
in the language of "sword and sorcery, might and magic".

The idea is more "user interface" discussions, including
generations, discoveries, "that's funny...", etc.

Would that be on-topic for comp.ai, too, or perhaps a summary
with highlights would be more appropriate? e.g., this advise
to someone (not me) looking for a new pastime:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _[ GPT4 ]_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hark! Brave adventurer, thou hast grown weary of thine current diversions
and dost seek new quests to occupy thy time. Fear not, for I shall bestow
upon thee a trove of activities that shall lead thee to countless realms
of wonder and mystery!

Enchanting tomes: Delve into the chronicles of far-off lands and heroic
tales, unraveling the secrets of parchment and ink.[. . .]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(And I do see someone has commented already...)

--
-v

Greetings.

On 2023-04-25 20:44, vallor wrote:
> Take a look in c.a.s: I made a post there
> of the text of a conversation with GPT4. There are
> two versions of the answer, one is just the default
> output, and the next was after asking it to rephrase
> in the language of "sword and sorcery, might and magic".
>
> The idea is more "user interface" discussions, including
> generations, discoveries, "that's funny...", etc.
>
> Would that be on-topic for comp.ai, too, or perhaps a summary
> with highlights would be more appropriate?

Sure, as long as you're discussing the AI behind the output, rather than
simply posting automatically generated dialogue, poems, etc., without
any AI-themed commentary. I see you've already sent a submission to the
group, which I've approved.

Regards,
Tristan

--
Dr.-Ing. Tristan Miller, Research Scientist
Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence (OFAI)
Freyung 6/6, 1010 Vienna, Austria | Tel: +43 1 5336112 12
https://logological.org/ | https://punderstanding.ofai.at/

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:27:25 +0200
Tristan Miller <tristan.miller@ofai.at> wrote:

> > Thinking that, somewhere on the Usenet, there must be a
> > discussion. comp.ai is moderated, and everywhere else
> > on comp.ai seems inappropriate.
>
>
> What does the moderation status of comp.ai have to do with it? I
> moderate that group and welcome any on-topic posts consistent with
> the charter:

Who decided the group needed to have a moderator?

It's a low traffic group. Why aren't the high traffic groups like
Windows 10 and 11 moderated. Any kind of garbage can be posted there.

In article <20230509084133.7192338d@mx>, Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>Who decided the group needed to have a moderator?
>
>It's a low traffic group. Why aren't the high traffic groups like
>Windows 10 and 11 moderated. Any kind of garbage can be posted there.

There was a time when it was a very high traffic group, and there was a
time when there were many contentious issues about what AI was and what
AI techniques were really AI. Moderation was either needed to keep the
OPS5 questions out or to keep them in depending on who moderated. The
knock-down drag-out fights between the Schenkians are gone now and the
need for moderation is passed.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Greetings.

On 09/05/2023 15.41, Johnny wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 15:27:25 +0200
> Tristan Miller <tristan.miller@ofai.at> wrote:
>
>>> Thinking that, somewhere on the Usenet, there must be a
>>> discussion. comp.ai is moderated, and everywhere else
>>> on comp.ai seems inappropriate.
>>
>>
>> What does the moderation status of comp.ai have to do with it? I
>> moderate that group and welcome any on-topic posts consistent with
>> the charter:
>
> Who decided the group needed to have a moderator?

The community decided this in April 1999 by a vote of 197 to 29. You
can read the original RFD and the result at
<https://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/comp/comp.ai>.

> It's a low traffic group. Why aren't the high traffic groups like
> Windows 10 and 11 moderated. Any kind of garbage can be posted there.

It's low-traffic now, but it had much higher traffic at the time of the
vote, much of which was considered to be disruptive. (One commonly
cited culprit was Arthur T. Murray, a.k.a. Mentifex, who claimed to have
solved AI with his Forth-coded chatbot and relentlessly promoted it
there at every opportunity. To this day he continues to spam
unmoderated AI newsgroups and web forums with this material.) Even
today the group attracts a lot of spam, which you don't see because I
don't let it past moderation.

As far as I know, there are no groups in the Big 8 specifically
dedicated to Windows 10 and 11. If there are, and you think they'd
benefit from moderation, feel free to submit an RFD.

Regards,
Tristan

--
Dr.-Ing. Tristan Miller, Research Scientist
Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence (OFAI)
Freyung 6/6, 1010 Vienna, Austria | Tel: +43 1 5336112 12
https://logological.org/ | https://punderstanding.ofai.at/

Tristan Miller <tristan.miller@ofai.at> wrote:

>. . .

>As far as I know, there are no groups in the Big 8 specifically
>dedicated to Windows 10 and 11. If there are, and you think they'd
>benefit from moderation, feel free to submit an RFD.

Please don't encourage comp.* groups redundant of the two existing
alt.comp.* groups.

alt.comp.os.windows-10 Discussion about Microsoft Windows Version 10
alt.comp.os.windows-11 For all things related to Microsoft Windows version 11.

They do fit in with the naming scheme of prior Windows newsgroups.

Greetings.

On 10/05/2023 15.00, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Tristan Miller <tristan.miller@ofai.at> wrote:
>> As far as I know, there are no groups in the Big 8 specifically
>> dedicated to Windows 10 and 11. If there are, and you think they'd
>> benefit from moderation, feel free to submit an RFD.
>
> Please don't encourage comp.* groups redundant of the two existing
> alt.comp.* groups.
>
> alt.comp.os.windows-10 Discussion about Microsoft Windows Version 10
> alt.comp.os.windows-11 For all things related to Microsoft Windows version 11.
>
> They do fit in with the naming scheme of prior Windows newsgroups.

Seeing as how those two groups aren't in the Big 8, I don't see how my
previous post could be read as encouraging the creation of redundant ones.

Regards,
Tristan

--
Dr.-Ing. Tristan Miller, Research Scientist
Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence (OFAI)
Freyung 6/6, 1010 Vienna, Austria | Tel: +43 1 5336112 12
https://logological.org/ | https://punderstanding.ofai.at/

On 5/10/2023 9:44 AM, Tristan Miller wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> On 10/05/2023 15.00, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Tristan Miller <tristan.miller@ofai.at> wrote:
>>> As far as I know, there are no groups in the Big 8 specifically
>>> dedicated to Windows 10 and 11.  If there are, and you think they'd
>>> benefit from moderation, feel free to submit an RFD.
>>
>> Please don't encourage comp.* groups redundant of the two existing
>> alt.comp.* groups.
>>
>> alt.comp.os.windows-10  Discussion about Microsoft Windows Version 10
>> alt.comp.os.windows-11  For all things related to Microsoft Windows
>> version 11.
>>
>> They do fit in with the naming scheme of prior Windows newsgroups.
>
>
> Seeing as how those two groups aren't in the Big 8, I don't see how my
> previous post could be read as encouraging the creation of redundant ones.

Seriously? There is a difference between changing the way usenet works
and accepting today's validity of the alt hierarchy. I find AHK's point
valid and Tristan's response elitist and disappointing. Those two
groups are easy to find and active.

Greetings.

On 10/05/2023 17.06, sticks wrote:
> Seriously?  There is a difference between changing the way usenet works
> and accepting today's validity of the alt hierarchy. I find AHK's point
> valid and Tristan's response elitist and disappointing.  Those two
> groups are easy to find and active.

I'm afraid you've completely lost me here. In order for Adam's point to
be valid, I'd have to be encouraging Johnny to be creating new Windows
10/11-themed groups in the Big-8 hierarchy alongside the existing ones
in the alt.* hierarchy. But I'm not.

We're having this discussion in news.groups, which is about newsgroups
in the Big-8 hierarchy. So I thought Johnny was talking about Windows
10/11 groups in the Big-8 hierarchy. It didn't even occur to me to
check other hierarchies. I wasn't trying to be condescending.

Regards,
Tristan

--
Dr.-Ing. Tristan Miller, Research Scientist
Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence (OFAI)
Freyung 6/6, 1010 Vienna, Austria | Tel: +43 1 5336112 12
https://logological.org/ | https://punderstanding.ofai.at/

Tristan Miller <tristan.miller@ofai.at> wrote:
>On 10/05/2023 15.00, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Tristan Miller <tristan.miller@ofai.at> wrote:

>>>As far as I know, there are no groups in the Big 8 specifically
>>>dedicated to Windows 10 and 11. If there are, and you think they'd
>>>benefit from moderation, feel free to submit an RFD.

>>Please don't encourage comp.* groups redundant of the two existing
>>alt.comp.* groups.

>>alt.comp.os.windows-10 Discussion about Microsoft Windows Version 10
>>alt.comp.os.windows-11 For all things related to Microsoft Windows version 11.

>>They do fit in with the naming scheme of prior Windows newsgroups.

>Seeing as how those two groups aren't in the Big 8, I don't see how my
>previous post could be read as encouraging the creation of redundant ones.

When skirv had your job, he had a penchant for newgrouping Big 8 groups
that were redundant of long-existing well-trafficked alt.* groups. None
of these redundant groups had a proponent. It was skirv who "just knew"
they were going to work.

Every single one of them failed, and in one case, skirv was forced to
rmgroup one of them.

Let's learn a lesson from this bad experience. Redundant newsgroups have
always been a bad idea.

Moderation? Please don't encourage that.

alt.comp.* and comp.* should be seen by you as complementary.