My thoughts on this are simple. If a user is assisted in making a post through artificial intelligence, instead of the user to pass it on as knowledge coming from themselves they should do the right thing and simply put at the footnote or references, source as artificial intelligence. Doing this without adding a source is tantamount to plagiarism. However if it is overdone by a user then the attention of the user needs to be called to it and they should be cautioned. We want to see original thoughts, ideas and write up not ai generated.
The problem with this one is that some people don't really like it even if you're honest about your involvement with AI because they don't appreciate the fact that your post isn't organic and that you claim that your post is informed opinion when it's just a generated nonsense from an AI that was made to look like it came from your head and not computer generated. Although they might forgive you a little for the honesty that you've used an AI, you will not get anything out of all of this and at the same time, your post from that point in time including your past post would be in scrutiny because they want to see if you're not a first offender and that this might not be your only time that you've used an AI, what basically this confession would lead to is just people getting in the ignored list of a lot of people and possibly a lot of reports because of how they've conducted themselves.
In my opinion, the stance on AI posts here in the forum is that of someone is using an AI to write a novel, as a publisher, you're never going to want all of that as a book because you know that it would serve only nothing but just a quota for the writer and nothing more, no emotions and hard work were poured into it besides the creativity in the prompts and it's not human enough to make AI post a thing in this forum and we will eventually arrive in a point where we don't care anymore because we've tolerated AI as a way to fulfill post counts.