a month ago
Generative AI tools can be useful for organizing ideas or improving posts, but they can also blur the line between genuine personal contributions and machine-written text. We need to maintain a community where content reflects real experience, authentic voices, and trusted expertise.
These guidelines are meant to ensure that AI can be used responsibly without diminishing the value or confidence in member-created content. We think the the acceptable and unacceptable guidelines below strike a balance between using the power of generative AI to maintaining an authors own knowledge, perspective and voice.
“Content generated by generative AI” refers to any content created, in whole or in part, using a system that automatically generates content in response to a prompt. Examples of systems include large language models such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude or open source models. While these tools are designed to produce text that sounds natural and convincing, the accuracy and quality of their output can vary widely including completely fabricated content due to hallucination.
To keep your trust and add continual value to our members we must remain a community of people, for people, in our shared world of technology.
You may use GenAI tools to help you plan, structure, or clarify your writing, as long as the final result reflects your own thoughts and tone.
Examples include:
If a generative AI tool meaningfully shaped your post (anything beyond the examples above like rewriting full paragraphs or producing a significant amount of the text), please disclose it by adding the predefined "GenAI Assisted Content" label, or include a short note such as “This post was assisted by GenAI.” For content where it's not possible to add a user tag, e.g., answers to questions and comments, you must include this statement: "This post was assisted by GenAI."
Doing so will provide the transparency needed to maintain credibility in the community.
A predefined "GenAI Assisted Content" label can now be found throughout the community:
Posts that are primarily generated, rewritten, or reworded by AI are not allowed.
Examples include:
Moderators may remove posts that read as machine-written or lack personal insight, regardless of the author’s stated intent.
Furthermore, if a post appears to violate the acceptable use criteria, it will likely be removed along with any points or reputation it gained. Continued abuse of generative AI tools may result in moderator warnings or, for repeated violations, account suspensions or permanent bans.
All of our top contributors started with no SAP knowledge, and many built their reputations by providing answers in the community. One approach is to look for an unanswered question in a technology you are familiar with (especially one with a high view count), do some research and see if you can come up with a solution. You will learn during this process and help other community members at the same time.
Much like generative AI tools that are always evolving, this policy will need to evolve and be updated as unforeseen usages of generative AI require fast moderation reactions that may or may not be reflected just in time in this document, but the moderators are empowered to enforce as needed any and all steps to protect the experience of our SAP Community members as directed by management.
I will add a simple rule of thumb: If you don’t have an answer to a particular question, you can ask GenAI to give you a hint or a direction to explore. However, all the GenAI generated hints need to be verified in the system for its accuracy before posting as an answer. Otherwise, don’t use the GenAI generated content especially when you are not a subject-matter-expert to judge it.
Just a rant about people using GenAI: I'm pretty sure some experienced people with good reputation use GenAI for answering questions, they don't check the generated answer which is "obviously" wrong (hallucination). Even after being warned, they don't fix their errors and continue posting other GenAI answers still containing "obvious" errors. I'll continue to report them, but moderators need to be real SAP experts to confirm that these answers are from GenAI.
By the way, such people may have the title "SAP Champion" so people or moderators may probably not feel comfortable (like me) to report or warn them. Anyway, if the answers are not good, people will see it when trying to apply their solutions, so here it's not worse than people providing wrong answers by mistake. Side note: the title "SAP champion" may confuse people who may think they are SAP employees.
I agree to the heavy use of GenAI these days. It can be used for correcting the tone and thought of words. However, no one can beat a human interactive language. Many solutions suggested by GenAI are not upto mark and provide vague solutions. Best is if you know the answer to a question and have tested it's authenticity on system, then only respond to the question.
I agree with the comment from @Sandra_Rossi about "SAP Champion".
Perhaps a better title would be "Community Champion" if you want to reduce the risk of people perceiving these as employees, and also to distinguish them more clearly from SAP Mentors. Although I was aware that these are different I wasn't aware of what the main difference was until I read the document SAP Champions in SAP Community Leaders Finder.
@KjetilKilhavn "Community Champion" is very good.
@Sandra_Rossi @KjetilKilhavn How about "SAP Community Champion"?
@Dominik_Tylczynski I don't think that's a good idea, because a change to "SAP Community Champion" won't reduce the confusion regarding how closely affiliated you are with SAP.
Besides, you can (or should) be able to become a community champion without necessarily being the topic expert. I hope it's the effort champions put in for the community that is measured, not the SAP skill level. "Community Chamption" is a title that ranks high in my book, because without the volunteers who devote time to keep the wheels turning, steer new members in the right direction and generally help everyone feel welcome the community will not thrive. It doesn't matter if that community is "SAP Community", your local archery club, or the school band.
@KjetilKilhavn I do appreciate your response and take your points. However:
Still, these is just my point of view. We are different people, perfectly entitled to various positions. It is good to have them and be able to freely discuss them.
Best regards
Dominik Tylczynski
Hi! I use AI to generate Images that align with my blog topic. Sometimes I don't find them anywhere (SAP Brand tools or Creative Commons). Is that permissible? Happy to acknowledge credit or denote that the Image is AI generated.
Appreciate guidance. Apologies if this is already addressed in the post or any previous comments here.
Hello @sureshnambiar ,
Thanks for sharing that! May I ask which specific AI tool or platform you’re using to generate those images? I’m curious about the toolset, since the permissions and attribution requirements can vary quite a bit between systems.
Appreciate your clarification, and thanks again for the insights you’ve shared here!
Best,
VB
This is a great topic, there is a clear line of what is your inputs and what is IA only generated.
Basic as
1. Working with IA as a tool
2. Expecting IA do your job
🙂
Thanks for these guidelines. which I was not aware of the same.
Como novato de SAP me parece excelente poder crear reglas que ayuden a conservar y hacer crecer la comunidad