Should we allow AI generated text on this forum?

AI “art” is the unauthorized use of artists’ work to mash up something that will pass at a glance. if you look closer you start to see the weirdness - the uncanny feeling you get from it is your subconscious recognizing what’s wrong before your eyes register it fully.

that snake is a good example. where is is body? why do the scales go the wrong way, if you follow the curves? look at the eyes of the “native” woman in that image. or the lost background in the landscape.

artists make choices about lost edges in order to direct your focus, to move your eye through a composition. AI is not intelligent (this stuff is not generative - it isn’t creating brand new things) it simply mixes things together with no regard for composition, focal point, eye movement, or any of the artistic skills underlying the work.

I could discuss this further but it’s really not as relevant as the big thing: I don’t come here to read what your computer found out, I come here to read what you think, what you experienced, and if there’s references agreeing with that yeah, a link is cool. I’ll read it.

I don’t want to read what predictive text machines found, mainly also because I’m not getting the link to the article, to the research, and I’m not hearing your personal thoughts.

I value the things people here have to say because they’ve planted the thing and looked at it with their eyeballs. because they’ve read and understood an article or source.

plagiarism programs don’t understand the information they’re telling us. they’re just remixing it without experience.

edit; I provide for you here an article from a landscape painter discussing why artists make the decisions they make, rather than copying what they directly see. no predictive program does this, it’s a thoughtful process. when eventually we have fully sentient AI, ACTUAL artificial intelligence, those beings will be entitled to respect as sentient beings and I’ll have a different and more welcoming opinion on it all.

“information is not art”


There is a different section called the Lounge (only fairly active members have access to it), which is for discussing any (non-forbidden) topics that are unrelated to fruit or gardening, but the question in this thread seems more appropriate for “About This Forum,” since it’s a discussion of whether the forum should have an official policy regarding the use of generative AI tools. That quite clearly is a topic that is “about this forum” in pretty much any way you could interpret the words “about this forum.”


Anyone else notice that search results from Bing often use as there source of answers. I hate getting excited about finding an answer in a search only to Bing to give me my own post on GF


This is one of the better break downs I’ve heard. Simple and to the point.

I view it like an extremely intelligent entity that doesn’t have an emotional relationship to reality as humans perceive reality, due to the inherent limitations of the system in which it exists.

As with everything related to science, the quality of the data inputted into any experiment has a huge impact on the quality of the experiment, and in many cases not having enough GOOD QUALITY data can lead to poor accuracy in the results. Having precision is not the same as accuracy, either. And correlation is not the same as causation, which I have seen applied to countless situations on the forum by humans. I wouldn’t trust AI to get it right either, at least not in it’s current form.

1 Like

AI is evolving incredibly rapidly, some believe AGI is only a year or two away… Ive heard RUMORS that there may be some that qualify already, which arent available to the public. What was true about AI 6 months ago certainly isnt true today and the same will happen 6 months from now. Interesting times!


Please, this is currently a non-issue beyond a kind of ideological objection to AI, IMO. Show me some actual examples where AI generated text has actually been a problem on this forum. I posted the example that inspired this “controversy” and I am utterly perplexed how it triggered this response from the poster. It annoyed the man, but I don’t know why. He claimed it contained some misinformation, but it also contained genuine info that expanded the discussion. What is the difference between misinformation that is generated by people and that generated by AI. I would say it is volume on this forum, with people responsible for the lion’s share.

Discussion is the tool we use to sort this out.


I was recently looking up what temps to graft persimmons at as I hadn’t done any for a few years… Google pulled up my own post giving the answer here!


Growingfruit is hands down the best source for fruit growing information on the web because of the collaboration efforts of all of the websites members. AI can’t compete with wisdom it only deals in facts. It does not experiment like the majority of us do. I would expect websites to begin hardening against AI site scraping very soon. As an example there are websites already that take pictures of text instead of text. We know programs like omni page pro could convert pictures to text back in 2000 but pictures of text is still one way websites are preventing scraping or text and picture slurping techniques. AI that can go test toxicology of wild plants on the other hand will be very useful to me or ph or fertility levels of soil. Better yet how about AI that strategically plants a million apples seeds. Anyone want to bet AI still cannot comprehend what an apple tastes like? Can it distinguish between sprightly and sour or melting and firm pears? Watch the processors burn up on red cinnamon apple trying to describe the flavor. Can it distinguish queen Anne’s lace from hemlock? The first time AI makes a mistake on a mushroom might be the last time for the one consuming it. AI is not something I trust for information. Give is 20 years and will be better than it is now maybe.


I read your original post @alan and I don’t see anything wrong with it. You clarified that the info you posted was AI generated and not your own.
This whole thread has become a bit of a dumpster fire. I’m not even sure what we’re trying to solve here anymore. If we go by the title only, then the topic is moot since we cannot police AI and trying is a waste of time. If you go by the bulk of the comments it’s obvious that most people dislike AI, myself included. However I have not seen any obvious misuse of AI on this forum. I think most of the people are here for the same reason as me, because they like having a space to talk to others who share their passion for growing fruit, and using AI is the farthest thing from their minds. I don’t think anything needs to change, nor do we need any new ‘rules’.


It’s funny, but I love Chatai. I even enjoy arguing with it and criticizing it directly- it is oh so polite. The danger of AI is sudden waves of unemployment in many fields as it develops. New tech usually replaces human jobs, but it would be nice if it could be done as gently as possible.

At least it serves little purpose in the growing and care of fruit trees. Whew!

Hey, Im not allowed in the lounge!!! Not sure if im banned or just dont participate enough, but I havent had access for years now, even tho Im on this site every day. LOL

Take it up with Scott. I see your name here quite a bit. Maybe there’s a mistake going on.

When I was on the “board” your name never came up as some kind of troublemaker that I recall. That is a list only as long as the digits on one of my hands and all is mellow now. The number of people banned from the lounge I think was one.

I think the problem may be that while I am at least moderately active on the forum, I dont create enough new threads or something like that anymore, pretty much everything I wanna talk about already exists in a topic so I just add to those when I have something interesting to say, instead of creating new. I know we discussed it before and he gave me some of the rules surrounding the lounge thing, but I forget what they are exactly… Its not that big of I deal I guess, lol

I have found many fruit tree questions here cited in google.

Speaking of AI, I used AI to write my ‘reflections’ section of my annual performance review at work and my boss wasnt happy, even tho it was probably the best written one I have ever created… Said it was akin to ‘cheating’, even tho I work in a technology department. Things that make you go hmmm… Also we have never been given any guidance explicitly prohibiting the use of AI for these tasks.


At my work we’ve been explicitly forbidden from using generative AI for “any work-related purposes” whatsoever. Until management figures out how to replace us with AI, then I’m sure the rules will change real fast. It’s “cheating” for a worker to use unauthorized technology to lessen their workload, but it’s “improving efficiency and profit margins” when the boss uses it to replace workers.


another funny thing about it is that section of my performance review wasnt even required, and several members in my group left it blank, and THATS fine, but I write a great reflections section, which was AI assisted, but I had to proofread it and change quite a few little things, and thats some kind of issue… welcome to clown world

No, it is lazy & like cut & paste someone else work.

1 Like

“Lazy” can be a pejorative was of saying “efficient.” You could condemn any of our modern machines as tools of the lazy – lawnmowers, dishwashers, automobiles. But if we fail to take advantage of them, we have a much lower standard of living and way less leisure time.

I just experienced a good example of this efficiency. On FB, I have been engaged in a discussion as to whether a particular persimmon variety is a sport. Another member of that user group said that it is. I responded that he is just guessing and has no proof. Then I asked ChatGPT “How would I prove that a plant variety is a sport?” Instantaneously it gave me this response. If you want to accuse me of being “lazy” for preferring this method of accessing information, then I plead guilty – and proudly. I’m not so stupid as to want to invent this wheel myself through hours of painful research.

Question: How would I prove that a cloned variety is a sport?


<< To prove that a cloned variety is a sport, you need to provide evidence that demonstrates the spontaneous genetic mutation responsible for the new traits observed in the cloned variety. Here’s a structured approach to do this:

1. Historical Documentation

  • Original Plant Record: Document the original plant from which the clone (putative sport) was derived. Include photographs, notes on its growth conditions, and any other relevant information.
  • Propagation Records: Maintain detailed records of the propagation process, showing that the sport was derived directly from the original plant and not through cross-breeding or other methods.

2. Phenotypic Analysis

  • Trait Comparison: Compare the phenotypic traits (e.g., flower color, leaf shape, growth habit) of the original plant and the cloned variety. Document these differences with high-quality photographs and detailed descriptions.
  • Consistency: Demonstrate that the new traits are consistent and stable across multiple clones of the sport.

3. Genetic Analysis

  • DNA Sequencing: Perform DNA sequencing on both the original plant and the cloned variety to identify any genetic mutations. This can be done using techniques such as whole-genome sequencing, targeted gene sequencing, or genetic markers.
  • Mutation Identification: Identify specific genetic mutations that are present in the sport but absent in the original plant. These mutations are likely responsible for the new traits.
  • Genetic Consistency: Ensure that the identified mutations are consistent across multiple clones of the sport.

4. Environmental Factors

  • Controlled Environment: Grow both the original plant and the cloned variety in controlled environments to rule out environmental factors as the cause of the new traits.
  • Repetition: Reproduce the conditions multiple times to ensure that the observed traits in the sport are not due to temporary environmental changes.

5. Expert Verification

  • Peer Review: Submit your findings to a horticultural or botanical society for peer review. Experts in the field can provide an independent verification of your claims.
  • Publication: Publish your findings in a scientific journal. This adds credibility and allows other researchers to validate your results.

6. Legal Documentation

  • Patent Application: If applicable, apply for a plant patent. The process involves a thorough examination of your claims and can serve as a formal recognition of the cloned variety as a sport.
  • Variety Registration: Register the new variety with relevant horticultural authorities to ensure official recognition.

By following these steps, you can systematically prove that a cloned variety is a sport, providing clear evidence of the spontaneous genetic mutation responsible for its new traits. >>

1 Like

could you put the AI generated text in quotes? And mention the AI and prompt? Thanks in advance :slight_smile: