vawaver seems to be a bot, sounds like chatgpt, is this okay to have in this forum?
I have already answered this topic regarding the use of AI here in the forum. I will not return to it again.
are you thinking I’m a bot/AI?
no, not you, vawaver is using AI
@vawaver has explained his use of AI in great detail… his threads are well written, extremely helpful and always in context. @vawaver does lots of work for this forum and is highly appreciated for his technical expertise and community effort!
Here’s the link to that explanation, for those who are interested: Is there limitations to installing Nextcloud via CT template on Proxmox - #4 by vawaver
1 Like
Thanks foir the link, that was very helpful. I have to admit I do get allergic reactions everywhere I see typical AI language and then I tend to loose trust in these answers. Others, like dokuwiki have banned AI usage in their forums and I understand why Please do not post "AI" generated answers - DokuWiki User Forum - but this is another question…
I appreciate the responses from @scubamuc and @bb77 – it was good to see someone step in when things started heading in the wrong direction. And thanks for linking back to my earlier explanation about using AI – I wrote that post specifically to be transparent about it.
Yes, I use AI. I’ve never hidden that, and I don’t see anything wrong with it. In my case, it’s just a writing assistant – helping with structure, clarity, and phrasing. All real-world setups, testing, and configurations are done by me – the AI doesn’t touch my server 
Honestly, what surprises me more is how little effort some users put into asking for help. If they used AI themselves to properly describe their problem, it would save everyone a lot of time. Too often, people post vague questions, and we then have to go back and ask for basic details that should’ve been there from the start.
What’s even worse is when users completely ignore the template that moderators and admins have put in place to make support easier for everyone. Posting one random sentence and expecting a solution isn’t a great approach – with or without AI.
Lastly – apologies for the off-topic tangent. This has gone beyond the scope of the original thread, and it’s best not to drag it on further.
Let’s leave it there and get back to focusing on Nextcloud.
2 Likes
@vawaver if we can’t discuss things here, then where? this is exactly what makes community work human and worthwhile 
its important to show appreciation for community effort.
yeah, that is quite tedious at times, but something that happens in business/company real life support issues constantly.
what irks me personally is that some threads with helpful solutions are simply ignored and two threads on, the same question arises…
1 Like
I split this discussion into separate topic as it is off-topic to the support topic where it started.
Just to clarify our official position - we don’t ban AI-generated context in general.
- we don’t want “AI-only” stuff - but improving own content using AI this is allowed
- also AI-generated but verified content is allowed
- we really appreciate if the usage of AI is indicated inside the post
@nomad as stated before there is nothing wrong if somebody uses AI to generate valuable content. It remains in responsibility of the user to verify AI content but at the end there is no big difference as human generated content in a public forum is often wrong or inaccurate
@vawaver I appreciate your contributions but you can not expect people to know you provided “AI usage statement” before - just to avoid confusion in the future would be great you add small hint to “AI posts” just to avoid discussions 
4 Likes
Yes, as you could see from the other thread, I had an allergic reaction, too. That’s why I called @vawaver out on it. 
After reading his response, however, I had to admit that it wasn’t all bad.
To the actual topic:
While I can understand the people on the DokuWiki forum preferring to interact with humans only, trying to enforce this doesn’t make much sense. The genie is out of the bottle, and we can’t put it back in. In other words, AI tools are here to stay, and more and more people will use them. Therefore, I believe it’s better to encourage people to use AI responsibly than trying to ban it.
The latter is becoming increasingly difficult anyway, and probably impossible in the long run, because, in many cases, you simply can’t tell anymore whether something was created with the help of AI tools.
4 Likes
@scubamuc
I totally get where you’re coming from – and yeah, you’re right. Discussions like this are part of what makes a community tick, and as long as it stays respectful and on point, it’s worth having. I really appreciate that you spoke up in the original thread and here as well. It’s good to see others thinking along the same lines.
And yeah, it can definitely get frustrating when useful threads go unanswered or when people ask the same thing again two posts later. But I guess that’s part of any open support space. Like you said – happens in business support too. Sometimes all it takes is one helpful outcome to make it worth the effort.
@wwe
Thanks for the feedback – I hear you. You’re right that I can’t expect others to dig through my post history and find my previous AI usage explanation. A short line like “written with AI assistance” might indeed help avoid unnecessary back-and-forth.
I just tend to focus so much on the content, especially in more technical posts, that I forget to add that kind of disclaimer.
One idea that came to mind: maybe it would be worth considering the Discourse Signatures plugin. If that was an option here, I could simply add a small, unobtrusive line in the signature like:
“This post was written with AI as a writing assistant. More details here → [link to my AI usage topic]”
That way, it’s clear without having to repeat it in every post, and it wouldn’t clutter the discussion.
I actually run a Discourse forum myself for the Czech and Slovak Linux community, so I understand that not every plugin is a good fit and that admin decisions involve trade-offs. But I figured I’d throw the idea out there in case it’s worth considering.
If it’s not a good fit, no worries – just thought I’d share the thought
1 Like
Yes, this could be a great idea. And also if you link a topic, where you explain the usage, I think such topics can be helpful for others on how to use AI.
The problem for a forum and moderators is, how do you know that someone uses AI responsibly? AI output often sounds convincing and only if you know a topic well enough you might spot problems. For new users, this is very hard to know. Regarding the quantity of potential AI output, it must be the people posting AI-generated answers in their posts to verify that.
@tflidd
Thanks – I’m glad the signature idea makes sense. I also fully agree with what you said: the real issue isn’t AI itself, but how it’s being used.
My intention has never been to replace real knowledge, only to save time when writing – especially when I’m trying to share multi-step solutions, config setups, or real-world examples. I understand that, as a moderator, it’s hard to tell whether someone is using AI responsibly or just copy-pasting something they don’t understand. That’s why I fully support the idea that users should disclose AI use clearly.
If the community/moderation team decided on a simple guideline – something like:
“This post was written with the help of AI as a writing assistant.”
I’d be completely fine with that. And if the Discourse Signatures plugin was enabled, I’d gladly include that note there permanently.
Also – my AI usage topic is public for this exact reason: I believe it’s valuable to show how AI can be used in a transparent and responsible way.
Not to replace thinking – but to make communication clearer and more helpful.
As I’ve already mentioned elsewhere on the forum – I’m also active in the Linux space, where I run a Discourse forum focused on helping beginners in the Czech and Slovak community. So naturally, my mindset is always to support and help, not to mislead or harm anyone.
That’s something I want to make absolutely clear.
I’d also like to suggest one possible improvement that could benefit the whole community:
Since the Discourse Solved plugin is already in use, perhaps there could also be an additional way for the moderation team to visually confirm trust or endorse a contributor, even when there’s no technical “solution” to mark.
Here are a couple of ideas that might work:
-
Create a group like Verified ContributororTrusted Author– this could be assigned to users who consistently post helpful, accurate, and responsible content. A group flair could be shown next to the username to indicate this trust level. -
Introduce a badge such as
AI TransparencyorResponsible AI Use, granted to users who openly declare their use of AI and demonstrate they use it to assist, not replace, their own expertise.
This kind of visual cue could help reduce friction or suspicion, while showing that the community recognizes the difference between “blind AI output” and meaningful human contribution enhanced by AI.
2 Likes