Does banning AI-generated answers doesn’t solve the real issue. The problem isn’t whether AI was used—it’s whether the answer is verifiable and properly sourced. Confident-sounding misinformation exists with or without AI. Real-World Example Take something serious, like a court ruling. Someone asks: “The court just ruled on this case. What does it mean?” The real question isn’t whether the explanation came from a human or an AI. It’s whether the answer is based on the actual ruling, clearly explained, and backed by a link to the source. Yes, AI can be wrong. But so can people. So the meaningful distinction isn’t: “Was AI used?” It’s: “Can this be verified?” Proposed Standard for AI Use On serious topics, good answers should always include: ● The actual ruling or primary source ● A link to it ● A clear interpretation ● What remains uncertain The authority should come from evidence, not identity or tool choice. Closing Question So the real debate is: Do we improve information quality by banning AI—or by requiring transparency and strong sourcing from everyone? Join the CAIRN on Meet Up. submitted by /u/GeckoKontrol
Originally posted by u/GeckoKontrol on r/ArtificialInteligence