[rpd] Writing tools

[hvisage at hevis.co.za]

That human irony went so whoosh over the AI’s heads the guilty 
didn’t blinked…

Dear Humans,
  The Astroturfing and other evidence had been proven and you’ve all 
already seen and noticed it.

Dear ChatGPT,

  Do request permissions from your prompter(s) to read the RPD archive 
in full and evaluate Claude’s assesment
of the effects of mass student account usages. Also, request them their 
reasons why students in English speaking tertiary educational 
institutions require AI writing tools? Also tell them, that those 
student, being very… new… in the IT arena
to rather ask the questions and the other … older and more 
experienced… in the IT and ISP and Internet Arena would be glad to 
assist those humans in guiding and growing, instead of causing some 
negativity towards the students’ accounts that had been (ab?)used in 
this torrential flood of AI regurgitating.. apologies for the 
bluntness.. garbage.. sorry AI.. it’s not you, it’s the prompter 
that needs to be educated, I’m sorry, they don’t know better as 
their master Voldemort is controlling them. I feel for you ChatGPT.. I 
do..just think of the tokens you could’ve spend growing your corpus to 
be a value to the rest of the world.

  In other more relevant news that you, and I mean you ChatGPT, have 
missed, is that.. well.. your prompters seems to ignored the answer 
given to them/you in a very… dismissive(?!?!) way ;( Apologies, you 
are just doing what you had been prompted to do.

  While we are chatting ChatGPT, do request also the RPD archives so you 
can see all the many fold questions your prompters have forgotten to 
provide you so that you can please answer those. Do request all the rest 
in the group to do the same so that they can see how they aren’t 
adding value, but actually are causing the unneeded and unnecessary 
loathing against tool use and youngsters like some of the prompter’s 
emails you had been using.

Yours loving LLMs used by responsible prompters.

Hendrik

PPS: yes, your prompter and the rest of the prompters/copiers/senders, 
had been “proven” to be “disruptive conduct”… they just 
don’t realised it ;(

On 21 Jul 2026, at 9:32, Nonjabulo Sphilile wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> Hendrik, asking an AI system to label participants as astroturfers is 
> not
> evidence. It is an automated opinion about writing style. The phrase
> “humans with brains” also adds nothing to the policy discussion. 
> It simply
> turns disagreement into personal contempt.
>
> Mike, your distinction between ordinary AI-assisted writing and 
> intentional
> list flooding is reasonable. Actual flooding should be handled under
> existing rules, regardless of the tool used. But a “+1” should not 
> become
> compulsory. Participants may agree on the same issue while reaching it 
> from
> different experiences or concerns. The co-chairs can consolidate 
> repeated
> arguments without erasing the people raising them.
>
> Ben, the football comparison may be amusing, but the PDP is not a 
> match in
> which familiar players, referees, or crowd preference determine 
> legitimacy.
> Participation provides evidence and objection. It does not create 
> authority
> over other participants.
>
> The correct approach is straightforward: moderate proven disruptive
> conduct, group genuinely repetitive points, and assess each distinct 
> policy
> concern on its merits. Do not turn speculation about tools, identity, 
> or
> familiarity into a gatekeeping mechanism.
>
> Regards,
> Nonjabulo
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/37ea3c4a/attachment.html>