Wholly AI-generated posts should not be allowed on the EA Forum

Your response identifies these as AI generated, but does not explain why they lack merit. I skimmed the articles and it is not clear to me why these articles like these should be discouraged, let alone purged from the forum.

Beyond literalism explains the problem of narrow rewards and the need to design systems that internalize second order effects. 

From AI Tool to Being discusses the role of memory and existing across time as something that brings about selfhood and indicates consciousness, rather than just intelligence. 

The Widow Opportunity Map proposes a way to disseminate information such that resources can be directed to a vulnerable population. 

With 50 karma to your post, it bothers me considerably how popular your position seems to be. I have been deterred, on the margin, from generating posts sharing my ideas. With a job at the moment that takes over 60h/week and not being a fast writer, for me it's often between doing a series of iterations with Claude/Chatgpt on an idea, or it not being done at all. I feel increasingly alienated from this community, which I have identified with for like 6 years or more, due to this ascendant view I find rather censorious and prejudiced. 

I guess I just would ask that people read stuff and evaluate it before condemning it. If something seems to be AI and you don't want to read further, fine. But going on to condemn it simply on that basis seems very wrong to me. It seems very strange that in this community I am in a small minority thinking this. 

LessWrong mods have reported that, apparently, people with AI psychosis are often told by the AI to post their crackpot ideas onto LW, and the mods have to delete a lot of AI slop posts and bad posts by humans with AI psychosis. Could be something similar is going on here, except that the posts aren't getting deleted.

Yeah, that's fair — I guess I think that while posts shouldn't be filtered on content ~at all, they should be moderated on stylistic things, and part of the reason I like rate limiting is that it helps people get used to what I view as good community norms (e.g. reasoning transparency, etc). So maybe that's why I am more sympathetic than others to heavy-handed moderation.

BTW, I didn't downvote your comment and I think I understand where you're coming from. It sounds to me like you're remembering what the forum used to be like and are thinking of ways to preserve or perhaps even bring back that quality. 
I agree that some level of moderation is necessary and of course there is already moderation on the forum. But whether a post is worth someone's time could also be a choice left up to the reader, no?

So perhaps readers could be given more control over what they want to see rather than go the route of restricting newcomers from contributing. For instance, what if account settings allowed readers to filter their feeds by things like account age or author karma? Then that becomes a choice a reader makes, not the community as a whole. I feel that might allow people one way to manage their own attention without placing a lot of barriers on newcomers, some of whom may genuinely be interested in learning, understanding and becoming part of the community. 

Hi Michael.

Somebody has to be the one to read and upvote a new user's post first, or else it won't make it to the front page.

Are you implying you are often the one doing this? If so, have you considered just checking the posts on the front page? You would not lose much if you are not interested in the vast majority of the 1st posts from new users.

@Toby Tremlett🔹 , maybe mods could be tasked with voting on the 1st posts of new users.