From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

I would like to discuss creating a new unmoderated Big-8 newsgroup, comp.ai.chatgpt, devoted specifically to ChatGPT.

I searched the current newsgroup list and did not find a group dedicated
to ChatGPT. ChatGPT-related discussion can take place in broader AI
groups, but those groups cover much larger subject areas and do not
provide an obvious home for practical user-to-user discussion of
ChatGPT as a service and platform.

My proposed scope would include:

practical use of ChatGPT;
ChatGPT features, models, and changes affecting users;
prompting techniques and workflows;
troubleshooting and unexpected behavior;
comparisons among ChatGPT models and features;
integrations and applications involving ChatGPT;
reliability, limitations, privacy, and other issues directly related
to using ChatGPT;
OpenAI developments when they directly affect ChatGPT users.

General artificial-intelligence discussion unrelated to ChatGPT would
remain better suited to existing AI groups. General OpenAI API
programming that is not specifically related to ChatGPT would likewise
be outside the intended scope.

I am proposing the group as unmoderated.
A possible newsgroups description line would be:
comp.ai.chatgpt Practical use of OpenAI's conversational AI service.

I am open to suggestions about the group name, its placement within the
Big-8 hierarchy, and the proposed scope. In particular, I would be
interested in hearing whether comp.ai.chatgpt is preferable to a
broader generative-AI group or whether a different name would fit the
existing hierarchy better.

Most importantly, I would like to know whether there are Usenet users
who would actually read or post to this group if it were created. If
you would use the proposed group, please say so in this thread.

If there is sufficient interest, I am willing to act as proponent and
develop a formal RFD for submission to news.announce.newgroups.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Am 07.08.26 um 20:07 schrieb Phil Carson:

I would like to discuss creating a new unmoderated Big-8 newsgroup, comp.ai.chatgpt, devoted specifically to ChatGPT.

Is there a special reason to stick that to ChatGPT?What about other with similar functionality?

Most importantly, I would like to know whether there are Usenet users
who would actually read or post to this group if it were created. If
you would use the proposed group, please say so in this thread.

I would read and maybe also post, but not much, as I currently do not
use AI.
--
Gru|f
Marco

Junk-Mail bitte an trashcan@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

Phil Carson wrote in article <11555li$rars$1@dont-email.me>:

I would like to discuss creating a new unmoderated Big-8 newsgroup, comp.ai.chatgpt, devoted specifically to ChatGPT.

I searched the current newsgroup list and did not find a group dedicated
to ChatGPT. ChatGPT-related discussion can take place in broader AI
groups, but those groups cover much larger subject areas and do not
provide an obvious home for practical user-to-user discussion of
ChatGPT as a service and platform.

comp.ai already isn't busy. Why not just use that?

I am open to suggestions about the group name, its placement within

the

Big-8 hierarchy, and the proposed scope. In particular, I would be
interested in hearing whether comp.ai.chatgpt is preferable to a
broader generative-AI group or whether a different name would fit the existing hierarchy better.

As long as Usenet is as small as it currently is, IMO it makes more
sense to keep all the AI discussion in comp.ai. I'm subscribed to that,
and there's usually nothing in it.

Most importantly, I would like to know whether there are Usenet users
who would actually read or post to this group if it were created. If
you would use the proposed group, please say so in this thread.

I suppose I'd read a new one, but there are enough very-low-traffic
groups already, IMO. We need more people, not more groups.
--
The meek shall inherit, we're told,
But I'm not so easily sold.
For supposing they should,
It would do them no good --
They'd lose it at once to the bold.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 15:44:44 EDT, Marco Moock wrote:

Is there a special reason to stick that to ChatGPT?What about other with similar functionality?

There is. My reason for proposing a ChatGPT-specific group is that I think ChatGPT is a large enough subject in its own right to justify focused discussion.

There are a lot of things that are specifically relevant to ChatGPT users
rCo its features and models, changes to the service, prompting and
workflows, troubleshooting, privacy issues, integrations, and so on. If Claude, Gemini, Copilot and every other similar service were included, I
think the group would become a general conversational-AI group rather than
the ChatGPT user group IrCOm proposing.

That broader subject could certainly be worthwhile, but I see it as a different group with a different charter.

I would read and maybe also post, but not much, as I currently do not
use AI.

Thanks for the feedback, and especially for saying you would read the
group and might post to it.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 05:13:27 EDT, The True Melissa wrote:

comp.ai already isn't busy. Why not just use that?

As long as Usenet is as small as it currently is, IMO it makes more
sense to keep all the AI discussion in comp.ai. I'm subscribed to that,
and there's usually nothing in it.

I suppose I'd read a new one, but there are enough very-low-traffic
groups already, IMO. We need more people, not more groups.

ThatrCOs a fair concern, and I agree that creating another empty newsgroup would serve no purpose.

My reason for not simply using comp.ai is that comp.ai is a general artificial-intelligence group, while what IrCOm proposing is specifically a user group for practical discussion of ChatGPT as a service and platform. Those seem like substantially different subjects to me.

At the same time, IrCOm not assuming that simply creating comp.ai.chatgpt would magically produce traffic. ThatrCOs one of the reasons I started with
an informal proposal rather than going straight to an RFD. I want to find
out whether there are actually enough Usenet users who would read and participate in a ChatGPT-specific group to make it worthwhile.

If that interest isnrCOt there, then creating another empty group obviously wouldnrCOt make sense.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2