They permamuted me for chastising them. If they don’t use AI, they won’t be doing much research.

I was going to try again tomorrow. But, somehow they read my message as saying the first post was not AI written, which was. Then accused me of drug abuse and who knows

The left me alive long enough to try to tell a guy saying I brought nothing of value that their sub had a control problem and that should scare him because it is a sub on evolution. I mean, if you were to pick a sub that should be open to ideas, that’s the one.

IT got a little testy: Hi, one of the other community mods here. You’ve said quite a bit, so I’ll address everything here.

Not sure who is controlling this sub,

Our names are literally on the side of the page for our subreddit. Just like every other subreddit. If you hadn’t noticed after being on reddit for 10 years, I don’t know what to tell you.

I just hand typed on my freaking phone for 50 minutes and you removed b it saying it was AI generated.

That’s not our problem. Any use of AI is prohibited in the generation of content, under our rules regarding low effort content and intellectual honesty, whether you copy and pasted it, or re-typed what it spat out.

He quote me: “It was not.”

You admitted to using AI in the post itself. Quoting your own words back to you: “The theory presented here was developed in real-time conversation with AI.” But also, when plugging in your post to AI detectors, it comes up as having been completely written by AI. If you were using AI to assist you, clean up your post, it wouldn’t have come back as having been complete AI slop. If you have English as a second language or are on the spectrum, or any number of indicators that your use of language is different, it still would not have come back as having been completely written by AI. But as if that weren’t bad enough, you justified your use of AI slop with this: “So, 99% of all text in the future will be written by AI.”

BUT THERE he mistakenly reads my first post, not my second post, if I can give him credit for that much

Allow me to make this clear. AI training data steals from legitimate artists and academics, and strips the proper credit off of their work, so that LLMs can then spit out that content (or a version of it), and allow the user to take credit for work or language that isn’t theirs. This is inherently low effort and intellectually dishonest. But to sit here and try to gaslight us about it is that much more egregious.

This article represents a further refinement of the theoretical framework first presented in Redacted Science

We don’t permit “critique my theory” style posts either. For starters, a theory isn’t a conjecture, a guess, or something you managed to get ChatGPT to spit out that sounded clever. To quote our community guidelines, “a theory is a well-supported scientific account of a natural phenomenon, intended to model and explain observations, as well as test predictions. Theories are supported by laws, facts, observations in the field, mathematics, and experimental data, and like anything in science, are subject to revision (or even dismissal) with the input of new data and information. A theory is subjected to the most rigorous kind of scientific testing before it can even be called such. ‘Critique my theory’ posts on reddit characteristically possess none of these qualities. Many actively promote some form of pseudoscience.”

Your post just so happens to contain rampant pseudoscience. Not only have you convinced yourself, on the basis of conversing with a chatbot, that all of our evolutionary models are wrong, but that you yourself are the next big wave in evolution. Not to mention misinformation about drug abuse, neurotransmitters, and epigenetics. r/evolution is intended exclusively for the science-based discussion of evolutionary biology. This means that if I can’t find it at PLoS One, Pubmed, BioArxiv, in a textbook, pr published on any number of reputable science news outlets, it probably isn’t appropriate for the subreddit. If it contains claims that fail to meet even a basic burden of proof, it most definitely is not appropriate. And if no amount of correct by subject matter experts or citations would convince you that your unscientific ideas are wrong, there’s nothing for you here.

Further, you’ve made two separate posts attempting to generate animosity towards the mod who removed your post. We don’t permit that either. Our rule with respect to civility is compulsory. No one is required to accept rudeness or nastiness, including the members of the mod team.

The article is available along with the book on my website

We didn’t give you the go-ahead to advertise either your book or your website, so given that you’re financially benefiting from both, you’re in violation of our community rules regarding spam.

He quotes me again: I have no idea what this sub is for if you aren’t willing to listen to real science.

You haven’t done any. You sat in front of ChatGPT.

I’m not going to type it all again or even accept an apology.

Well, that just so happens to work out. Your posts violated our community rules several times over. Also, we weren’t offering an apology.

That being said, given your multiple rule violations, and your attempts to escalate, I believe a stay on our ban list is in order.

I kinda like it.

Gives me another article to write on suppression of science, anti-AI bias, and exactly why I expect it to take years for my science to be pursued.

I work as medical faculty and literally have FMLA for this condition. Sure, the doc doesn’t know what it is, but he’s read my book, and he agreed to share it with his residents. That’s no longer pseudoscience. It is edge science.

But because of slow pokes like that guy, science will have to wait a while.

Hi, btw. If you are interested in evolutionary theory, feel free to critique, or ask questions. I have 30 years of this condition to draw on, plus what I’ve managed to recall from the original Article.