I have answered this in my post.

@Ramhound: It's not my intention to point fingers at anyone. I'm trying to open a discussion with the moderators which might in the future prevent such unpleasantness as I experienced.

SU is perhaps more vulnerable to this, because the best answer is not always as clear as for example in SE. Personally, I've given up on reviewing a long time ago, because I didn't always agree with the "right" answer and was penalized as a result. It became too tiresome to check if a post was real or a test.

In many cases it's not the lack of gratitude, but the fact that new users might be clueless about how things work here.

@Mokubai: I wonder whether Charcoal uses a database of spams as voted by users that don't come up with its checks in order to extend its knowledge, as I noticed that spammers tend to replicate their posts, so a real-time database could help. Another question is whether Charcoal is limited to one spam flag only.

Excellent idea - limiting new users to one post a day will help a lot with these spammers that are now bombarding our site. It will at least slow them for the time that they need to create multiple accounts. It won't help still against bots that can create multiple accounts automatically.

@PhilipCouling: You are also wrong about not having tools for catching ChatGPT answers. Have a look at GPTZero and ZeroGPT. These are the tools that I use to verify my impression that the nonsense answer came from ChatGPT, before I flag it for the moderators.

@Ramhound: I have seen answers where ChatGPT got creative and invented commands that don't exist. Its algorithm of chaining words selected by frequency of appearance can give strange results.

I have seen on SU a user (account since removed) who answered in a very short time 5 posts, all answers full of weakly related information but with no solution for the poster or just plain wrong. They even got upvoted because they seemed informative. Allowing ChatGPT will mean that anybody can answer as many posts as he has energy for doing copy-paste, and the upvotes will surely exceed the downvotes. This for sure will mean pure data pollution for SU.

My experience with ChatGPT answers on our site has shown that it has just about the same chance of coming up with a good answer as an infinite number of monkeys typing randomly on typewriters for an infinite time. I detect such answers by the fact that they simply make no sense, although they seem well-written.

My answer that was deleted was in a post where the question was how to find what the problem was. The moderator apparently wanted me to immediately tell that the problem was RAM, rather than give a procedure that could locate the problem. I think that this moderator was off-subject.

@ArrayBolt3: I agree. I have lots of experience here, and comments are confusing for posters that are used for forums like redit where there's no distinction between answers and comments. I've had cases where posters waited for answers and didn't read comments, so I had to post a "Not an answer" answer to get their attention. Other posters lost track when there were more than one person posting comments. So answers are not just for reputation, they are also for communication.

@music2myear: Thanks for taking the time, but I can't understand something: My answer was not about RAM, it was a general procedure for locating the reason for the crashes, software and/or hardware. The software part didn't pan out, so I added a hardware part that found the RAM problem. My orientation may be different : I'm looking to give advice to help solve posters' problems, which is why deleting an answer that could help because of format or wording seems a shame. The emphasis on format might diverge from our prime reason for being here.