Bitcoin Forum

https://app.gptzero.me/  100%Probability AI generated

https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector AI Content Found Percentage of text that may be AI-generated. 100%

In this case those allergic to AI will say it is plagiarism and the thread should be trashed in addition to banning the OP.

This view seems to me to have the problem of closing the forum to potential advertisers who are already using AI more and more.

I leave it as public information and separate from other threads for theymos and/or the moderators to decide what to do but it would be nice to know the criteria. I have asked ChatGPT and it doesn't seem that the OP has any legal obligation to cite that he has used an AI, but rather it depends on the forum rules.

The AI-generated content needs to be repackaged into an infographic. Then people will stop complaining about the quality.

I used to have negative stand against AI but I have started to learn that it is a good tool.

But when someone is trying to copy and paste the an entire article without giving it a personal touch then it is bad. I guess are real reader can get the sense once they read the post/article. When it senses an AI generated text then eventually the article lose it's value of reading.

I'm not really much of a big fan of using AI detectors to try to spot AI generated text the best you could do is actually just speculate if the text is AI generated or not because sometimes these AI generators may not give the right results. Nevertheless AI posts seem less interesting to read by people not because they are low quality but because the user posting it just copy pasted it.

There is a some sort of natural urge for reading that comes with a post that was authentically created instead of something that was just created an AI. This is basically just the reason why people ignore AI generated posts.

Why not? Although there might be some false positives or negatives, we use at least three detectors in the main AI Report Thread to make that conclusion. So far, I don't believe we've wronged anyone. Thus, what makes you say that?

Here's another example similar to OP's. Another casino is opting to have AI write their thread and reply to users who replied or asked questions. Personally, if you don't even bother writing the thread and the posts yourself, why should I bother with your shady casino? You don't even spend 5 minutes to construct a proper reply and you have AI to write it for you; I don't want a chatbot to answer my questions, I want a real representative. That's a huge no for me.

Report found here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65133755#msg65133755).

Thank you for this. This has always been my stand point. Other than having negative views about AI tools, we can use it to out advantage, it's almost equivalent to checking up facts and details on a regular search engine. Imagine having a knowledge about something and you are not certain if it is updated or outdated, with an AI tool you one will have wider range of updated information about that said topic.

Where the whole AI stuff might look bad is when the user simply copies everything verbally without first trying to understand the generated output to know if it answers the question asked and also try to put them in their own understanding. The aim of AI is to enhance our daily interaction and communication. Other than standing completely against AI usage I think the focus should be on contents that are copied and pasted word for word.

if you used AI as a mere aid in fact checking a point, it is rare to tag such kind of AI usage as a bad practice that is completely against the forum rules and regulation. once you go through a content that is generated by an AI, you can easily spot out the different between such content and another that is a pure opinion of a member.

the issue is with the copy and paste that some individual are used to which makes it difficult to take certain opinion as legit as it might be.

like @AB de Royse777 said, when you read a content that is a natural opinion from someone, the feeling is usually different from an AI generated one. imagine you are going through a thread that has application to what you are experiencing and the opinion you are reading are all generated through AI? what will be the implication of following such post?

using AI in a wrong way and pretending as though the opinion you are sharing is one that is generated directly from you is a wrong practice that is wrong both in the forum and in any other platform where constructive human intellectual knowledge is being used.

it is the reason for doing plagiarism check on high school project even though the lecturers knows that you will get some information online through some sources or even through an AI.

For somebody advertising his product that will require people to spend $10k, the least he could do is try to be original with his write-up. I'm not against using AI to help you write your stuff, but copying and pasting exactly what the AI generated is such a lazy thing to do, don't you think?

Nobody will be happy if the person they gave a job to is putting no effort whatsoever but simply generating AI to make his advertisement.
Just to confirm, I checked the post with copyleaks and it's 100% AI text. That's not cool at all.
Using the AI tool to make your writing and grammar better is a whole different thing from copy and paste.

I absolutely agree. Okay, you can make an announcement with the help of AI, but representatives, not robots, are obliged to answer questions from future clients. After all, the casino itself does not approve of bots playing instead of people, so why should we be satisfied with communicating with a machine?

AI is a very good tool and saves your time but you have to be knowledgeable enough to assess quality of content, advice from AI tools.

AI is good in a way it does not add any emotion, human bias to their content, that's better in many cases for example analysis right and wrong of JD Vance, Trump, and Zelenskyy in a White House Diplomatic show days ago. I don't want to go to political discussion here, it's just an example from neutral and non biased opinion from AI tools. Except if that AI is manipulated by the owner like how Google and Facebook were biased.

But people have to use AI rightly, I agree with you. Using AI tools for your own learning, researching, resolving your problems is rightly but using it to simplify how you earn money from content generation is sort of unacceptable similarly to plagiarism that is not couraged and not allowed in forum.

AI makes online life easier; I don't think it's wrong if someone uses AI to create their announcement or something similar. Actually, AI can't create content from zero unless you provide him content or points that you need. AI, write it professionally when you submit something to the bot.

However, using AI would go wrong when using it to make forum posts. It should be discouraged to use AI to create replies and make posts here. I had been using it to rewrite my posts to make proper grammar, etc., but some of my forum mates pointed out the things that went wrong. So instead of rewriting using AI, I have been using other bots just to make corrections on grammar. So it depends on the purpose of using AI; either it would be wrong or right.

This a project or a brand we are talking about here and not an individual post, and if what he has is exactly from AI. He has to read it and have  knowledge of it and used it to advertise or announce his project. But it is not good to used everything from the AI because what prompted him to develop the project must have different
mindset with the AI knowledge. And he can only take a part of the information and add it to his own before making the announcement in the public consumption. And if he copied everything from the AI, Opinion leaders will criticize him which is what you have done.
But what you quoted is a casino and if the Op has the casino running and he made that ANN from AI, I think it will not make sense because his thoughts were different from the AI even though he got some of the information from AI, he has to add his own reasons of developing the site. Though I am not a detector to know if he used Al for the ANN thread.

The intention is what really matters, rather the content in AI usage. If someone wrote something long wall of text and uses AI to check the spelling or better formatting then it might be okay but what 99% of the time happens is they just copy and paste contents of a post and just copy and paste the reply from AI tools which is wrong and those users doesn't add anything to the discussions at all should be treated with a temp/permanent ban.

But I wonder why they really used AI to create this ANN and it's just their features followed by description and if someone can't even do that then how can I believe that they are going to create me a casino. ::)

I don't think so. People who are against the usage of AI in this forum might or might not agree with me, but there can be some exceptions. Let me tell you how.

There is a difference in a person running a service and he uses an AI text generator to refine an announcement he has created, or he may provide the AI with the data that has to be added in the announcement so that AI does the rest because it can do it more professionally, ordering the stuff in a better way, and a person who copy and pastes a post/thread to the AI and asks it to generate a response for it and then copies and pastes the whole response generated by the AI, which makes the person trying to be what he is not.

You can use AI to help you with your work and assist you with things that you might not be able to do as accurately as it can. In this case, some might argue that the one running the service should have hired a writer to get the announcement written, but I would say that if they didn't want to do that, there is nothing wrong with that; however, as stated by @Ultegra134, the service shouldn't completely depend on AI, and it should stop at the announcement and the responses to participants or any other posts done as a response to a problem shouldn't be generated by an AI because that then becomes a problem.

Well, it depends on the one who uses it. If someone uses AI to cheat then it's a bad approach but if someone wants to understand a thing and other online sources can't explain it in a good way then one can take some help from advanced AI LLM's. However, it should be only used for learning purpose not to copy and paste the stuff that it generates. But, most of the LLM's are still not fully improved and no only really knows that on which data they have been trained and that's why it's always better to keep such things in mind.

What was it few years ago compared to what we have today? Meh! But of course, it has improved pretty much through the years, and that's good. What's this luddism OP keeps talking about?? I mean it's funny...
Didn't y'all -- at some point fear for the trouble rather than the benefits of AI, base off of the gibberish it'd produce if it were asked to formulate a page of content or something?

Exactlyyyyyyyy!!!!  I said the same thing, but in a different way on OP's previous post on the same topic. Who'd be so unreasonable to kick against an aid that can compose and do a whole lot of stuffs?? It's just the PEOPLE!!
or maybe OP enjoys stirring up an argument?

Sighs,while head shakes in disgust!!

This definitely makes sense. Businesses and individuals are embracing AI as it becomes widely available across the world, it is inevitable it will be utilised. Making announcements by writing posts and then using AI to modify it to fix grammatical errors will probably become less frowned up not only in the forum but elsewhere too. Having said that, representatives should not be replaced in favour of bots (or AI) if they do not allow others to use them on own their business website.

AI is not going away.  And unlike past perceived annoyances, this one cannot be ignored. 

That being said, there is a difference between using AI to assist versus using AI to do everything.   Even that can be seen as age bias, since Generation Z may already rely on these tools the same way Generation Y/Millennials relied on grammar correction or Generation X relied on spell checking.    Gen X is really the last generation that was "fully present" in high schools, and it shows in the reliance of these tools with today's youth - my nephew is 17 and cannot drive without GPS.  :/  Now my mother (Baby Boomer) also cannot drive without GPS but she is winding down her life while today's kids are just starting.

Not everyone has the same morals, and these people may not care but they may not also feel they are doing anything wrong.   Rather than enforcing such rules, more energy should be spent educating people how to use it properly.    AI is not bad - only how it's used.

Proper AI example.  I asked AI for colors for a futurism theme, but I still had to decide where to put each color.    I also had AI generate the logo, but the description used to generate it was mine.   :) https://elon.report   (still under development)

I have dealt with a similar case before, and I think it is relevant to post my stance here.


You are right and I have mentioned my apprehensions in my trust feedback. Having said that we cannot force someone to not use AI for their businesses. You are right that this forum should not only serve as a chatbot of theirs, that is the reason I mentioned the need for a temporary tag (in case he wants to correct his course).  

---

In my experience, the mods are reluctant to delete AI posts if its the first post in a thread, and most likely will not delete project posts, especially if its the first post in a thread.

Using ChatGPT or whatever to make your project summary seems to be OK. Then its up to the customer whether or not they want to use a product made by extremely lazy people.

I think a good parallel is during the 2017-2018 ICO boom, there were hundreds of projects with plagiarized white papers, and they were all scams. The level of effort which a person or team puts into a project is directly correlated with its likelihood of success.

That's not Bitcointalk's task. Even if "we" would manage to teach every user to properly use and quote chatbot output, there'd be many others who'd also jump at the opportunity to earn money by posting output from a free language model.

That's the problem: chatbots reduce the amount of effort to virtually nothing, which means the number of people that can do it goes up exponentially. We'll end up with the Dead Internet theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory):

I agree but sometimes a text that is originated from human and just enhanced using AI can give a 100% AI generated result (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5530909.msg65133033#msg65133033) on detectors.


Wrong.



This is interesting because this guy is doing the same:


This is a reply and is detected as 100% AI by copyleaks and gptzero. I completely agree with you, if you don't bother to put something of your own don't expect me to bother with your casino.


I agree.


It also has advantages. As is often the case with technological advances, they democratize access to what technology provides.

Why would the end customer care about laziness?  if I order food and the driver arrives in a car instead of a bicycle, should I not tip him?   And what about that bicycle?   Not extremely lazy, but still not walking...

It comes down to what they are using the tool for.   If it's just to make money on a forum post, then that is lazy, yes.   But what if my memory is bad so I keep track of my clients on a spreadsheet?  Are my services less valuable than a campaign manager that does everything by memory?

I don't have the right brain skills to imagine nice designs - I am very analytical.    My using a tool to generate a color scheme for a sci fi forum is no different than you using a tool to modify an image; can't you stop being lazy and just take the picture you want?


OK - Is not using AI to post any different than any other suggestion you constantly give to newbies who don't follow the rules?   It's not our job to educate people on the scams others use here, but we do.  :/

Hey everyone,

As you can see im slotsware, the creator of the casino software advertised in my thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5533085.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5533085.0).
I’ve noticed this thread suggesting that my use of AI in forum posts somehow implies my software itself was AI-generated.

Let’s clear this up.

Yes, I use AI tools to assist with drafting posts and communication.

It helps me save time and polish my wording, especially since English isn’t my first language and I’m focused on running a business, not writing novels.
But let’s be real: using AI for advertising or forum posts doesn’t mean my casino software was “made by AI.”
That’s a leap in logic that doesn’t even deserve a response, but I’ll give one anyway for clarity.

My software Slotsware.casino, detailed here: https://slotsware.casino/ (https://slotsware.casino/) was built from the ground up by me and my team.
Real people, real code, real effort. No ChatGPT or any other AI wrote a single line of it.
We’ve poured months into designing a reliable, secure, and user-friendly casino platform, and the results speak for themselves.
If you’ve got doubts, check the site, test the demo, or ask me directly, i’ll happily walk you through what we’ve built.

https://slotsware.casino/demo (https://slotsware.casino/demo)

Using AI for marketing is just smart business in 2025. It’s no different from using a spellchecker or a graphic design tool.
The complainer here seems more interested in stirring drama than understanding the facts.
I’m not here to scam anyone. Transparency is a core value for me and my business, and I’m fully available to address any questions or concerns.

I posted in this forum to offer a solid product. If you’ve got legit questions or critiques about the software itself, I’m all ears...bring it on.
Otherwise, let’s keep the focus on what matters: the work, not the words.

Cheers,

You really used no third party APIs, IDEs, frameworks or snippets?   Hopefully you didn't write your wallet from scratch!  :P

I haven't looked at your site (I don't gamble) but from what you wrote, your site is not AI generated.


1) The OP does not post to stir drama, but if members didn't comment on things they noticed, all this forum would be is spam.  He brought up a valid topic - AI - and the conversation has evolved past your site.  Don't view continued discussion as a direct attack.

2) You both are stating facts - you just are interpreting them differently.   Technology is moving so fast now that historical analysis/reaction cycles mean nothing.

It's good to see that some members of the community are opened to the fact that the AI detectors can give out false results because I have seen some few cases when these detectors tend to give out false results but the folks actually using them here are of the opinion that it can't which is sad because it's just as saying human can't actually write up to a standard where everything will be literally correct or maybe am getting the whole thing wrong because that's the way I see it.

Taking it as a fact that AI detectors are 100% effective and accurate is just as crazy as saying everything an AI says is 100% valid information. When I look at people who rely on AI detectors I see an extension of someone who also relies on an AI.
The fact is these AI detectors follow a regular pattern with the aim to burst an AI generated text and it's not 100% accurate. I see it more like a speculation not a factual feedback.

For the same reason you wouldn't invest in an ICO with a plagiarized white paper.


OK. We are in complete agreement here, and as I've said before I really don't care what people use it for in other contexts. Especially if its for the sake of creativity or humor.

---

I disagree. Whenever I see obviously AI-generated text, my eyes just kind of glaze over it and I couldn't care less about what is being said. If the author didn't take the time to write their own words, why should I take the time to read them? (not that I didn't notice your post here is also AI-generated)

An investor is not the end customer, though.   An investor may see AI as a red flag, but if someone invests and a product comes to market, the customer really will not care how it was built.  People use this forum and they don't care about all the fraud (laziness) that was involved in making it the way it is. 

Are you stupid, or what’s wrong with you? "Stirring drama"? You are talking to the guy who has most publicly defended the (proper) use of AI on this forum.

The issue here is that if you're going to use AI even to answer the questions we ask you, you're a lazy fuck. Don't expect me to be interested in your crappy casino.

You've earned a tag from me.

I don't understand what you mean with an infographic, i can say that it is a tool that can find its utility, we still say that it is too young to understand how to use it and consequently many people have to complain in its daily use.
I am convinced that in the future we will be able to use it better. For sure we need to understand the tool before.

No one said that, but we do believe that if you are using AI to even answer the questions people ask about your business, then you are lazy, for sure, and someone can imply that a lazy person might use AI even when they are building a website or a platform.


If you are focused on running a business, you should put in some effort. You can't have an AI text generator open in one tab and the forum in another. Take the questions from your thread, feed them to the AI and copy and paste the answers in the forum. That's not how you run a business. It's your business, so you should know everything about it. Why do you need an AI to generate everything for you? Assistance with words and polishing the grammar can be done using tools such as Grammarly, I use it too, and English is not my first language as well, but that isn't an excuse for me to use AI to make posts in the forum even if I'm running a business.

And of course, you can't say that you can't speak or write English at all because you can't be running a global business without that.


With the help of AI?  ::)


Using AI for marketing material is a different thing than using AI as a customer service representative, and that is exactly what you are doing because I've checked your posts, and almost all of them are 100% AI-generated. We often see bots or even AI bots responding to us in Live Chat in any platform, but when the bot can't understand or solve our problem, it connects us with a human operator. Imagine, the bot connects you to a human operator but the human operator itself is using an AI to assist you. What's the point then?

Not a question PP; that'd rather sit well as an affirmation!
See what I kept stressing out? The people!!!
Hehe... and you know what? We still got a bunch of birdbrains that have gone far in creating (this time, way more dangerous fugazis) that will eventually be used to pull millions of scams in the future.... Uhm, I'm afraid our generation may not witness its peak, but it's something to be worried about.

So yeah, AI is the best thing to happen in our lifetime, but worry more about "techno-maleficence"

The customer is more interested in the end product and not the source. If anyone really cares about the source it's the investor because they know their funds is at risk. It's disgusting how people lazily use AI just to flood the forum. Over time if this persists it will be harder to know the intention of people using the forum because their contents are prompts and not hard work,
 Obviously scamming will increase.

I disagree, more often than not, these detectors have successfully located numerous spammers, I don't recall ever seeing a case in the AI Report Thread where someone would successfully defend themselves and prove that they weren't using one. The majority of cases are from newbies spamming copy pasted gibberish that can be distinguished that it's AI just by reading it. A few older members who were caught with AI either quit without any explanation or nothing that could remotely backup that they weren't using one.

This is the reason why we're using multiple detectors over a variety of posts, we're not going to accuse someone just by one post.

I am still baffled that admins decided to do nothing about many AI generated posts and that they don't consider it as plagiarism. Plagiarism is exactly what it is. They didn't write the content - someone/something else did. They didn't mention the source of the content, which means they are pretending they are the original creators. That's what plagiarism is. 

Doing nothing is an invitation to people to come to the forum and post in threads with AI-generated content. The worst thing that can happen to you is that you get some negative or neutral feedback on your profile.

Well, it's not as simple as that (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/plagiarism).


Copying and pasting from an AI is not subject to copyright issues in many cases. In the case of the OP he is not simply copying and pasting something that the AI is making up, in order for the AI to produce that text he has had to give it a source of information from where the text has been generated. There is no plagiarism in the sense of the Cambridge dictionary and there is no copyright problem.

OK, I will admit it, sometimes you do make sense :D (sorry, I can't use everytime, and you would agree. You could argue that sometimes includes most of the times in a sense of set theory ;D).
Indeed, proper prompting is a skill but let's be honest we are specifically talking about shitty posters who just copy the OP or the last post and type, 'reply to it'.
I know AI is useful in many fields but whenever we are opposing the AI it is strictly for shit posting in this forum and IMO this is the category mistake you often makes or you do not but I think so (correct me if you want). 

This is not what we are talking about in this thread. This thread is about someone who has used AI to present their business, which is kind of like if I give a lecture on my PhD thesis and it is written for me by AI. No plagiarism, no copyright issue.

I do not think you need to explain to me, especially when I have posted my reply (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5534279.msg65136607#msg65136607) already in this thread. I was well aware of the context and subcontext (which prompted me to jump in).
See,

The subcontext is kind of off topic here. And lengthening the conversation about AI copy-pasters is pointless in this thread, there are others for that.

I'm going to strongly disagree with you here. I'd argue the Cambridge dictionary's reference to a "person" is outdated. So I'm going to follow a more modern definition, including verbal diarrhea made up by chatbots.
The copyright part is different, usually that's not a problem unless the copyright owner chases you down. But the chatbots themselves could very well be violating copyright laws on a massive scale. They must have used almost anything ever written as input, and I bet they didn't get permission from millions of different authors to reproduce it.

I don't think we can use that as an argument. How many decades or hundreds of years old is that Cambridge definition of plagiarism? It was defined at a time when there was no AI or chat bots, and it's no surprise that the definition only covers using another person's work. 'Something' couldn't plagiarize in those days. Now it can, and that something is the person who uses AI. As LoyceV said, the definition is outdated.

Moreover, according to search results, the definition for plagiarism dates back to the 1620s.

They violate it in the same way you violate it when you write here. When I say that Satoshi started bitcoin in 2009 it's not something I created, it's something I read at some point somewhere and I don't quote when I say things like this. Let alone when the thought is compounded and doesn't refer to a specific piece of data like this.

Do you ask permission to be able to write here when you write without quoting?


That's all well and good but neither of you is addressing the main issue here: I write a doctoral thesis, of my own authorship, without plagiarizing, and when I go to give a presentation of it the presentation is written for me by Chat GPT.

Is that plagiarism?

And let's get to the specific point of this thread, I create or acquire a business and when I want to make an OP for a forum I tell an AI to make it for me.

Is that plagiarism?

The best thing about that nonsense is that it stays written down.

it's pretty much confirmed at this point that every AI company that has its own model has violated copyright laws in some way to train their models.  
facebook for example, had court documents confirming that they torrented a shit ton of books to train their Llama model.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/10/mark-zuckerberg-meta-books-ai-models-sarah-silverman

I'm only going to mildly disagree with you here.   I agree with what you write, but I feel the word you use is outdated.   Copyright originally was a way to protect one person from lazily gaining profit from another's work.  (An example of this was shown in an episode of Little House on the Prairie Season 5, Episode 17, titled "The Craftsman.") <-- I looked that up on deepseek as I didn't know how to word the query on Google.  Now, some could argue that search engines like Google have been committing copyright for years.  Another argument could made for Grammarly, who does not cite the author of the books they get their rules from.    I'm not trying to point out holes in your argument, instead I'm trying to argue that the entire concept of copyright has to be reimagined; the information (value) of each idea is now available instantly to everyone.     If we could redo the copyright industry, imagine how less expensive things like vehicles could become?   Manufacturers pay each other for ideas they would have discovered anyway - with faster AI, two competitors can come up with the same idea just minutes apart. 

TLDR: The copyright industry is outdated, so I'm going to lean towards a more modern approach and give authors the benefit of the doubt and deal with extreme cases.

I don't know how you don't get the Nobel Prize for that reasoning.


Lol.



For that you have to be open minded about this subject, which most on this forum are not.

Luckily, both the moderators and theymos seem to be somewhat open-minded with this, as they do deal with cases of blatant AI copy-paste without having the simplistic view that any use of AI on the forum should be banned.

AI is a good development and it will help greatly in improving human efforts in whatever ways you employ AI as an assistant, the mistake most people make when it comes to AI and intellectual properties is that they allow themselves the stress to input their original contributions and rather rely on AI to do 100% of the work.

That is not the original way of AI usage, AI should be a complement to human work a complement in the sense that it acts as an assistant and not the primary source.

That's common knowledge. Of course you don't have to look for sources for something like that. You weren't born with that knowledge of who created Bitcoin but you acquired it and it's now a common piece of information. 

That depends. If AI creates your presentation based on your own doctoral thesis then I don't see anything wrong with that. You are then using AI to assist you with presenting something you wrote. You aren't plagiarizing and stealing without giving credit from someone/something else. Using AI to write a doctoral thesis and using it to summarize a thesis or converting it into a presentable format are two different things.

Again, it shouldn't be because I would assume that the AI is working with prompts and detailed information you fed it about your company. It isn't just making things up on its own or copying what it found from another thread.

I am thinking, probably those people that completely copy and paste everything they get from AI, they want the readers to see them as smart people or highly intelligent people to have come up with reasonable idea but it is not a smart habit in any way, even if someone must use AI, let the person give credit to the AI by the readers that the idea was AI generated. Personally, I believe that AI has its undeniable advantages but human people should not forsake their brains because they feel AI can give the 100% output that they want.

I see another problem, and that is developers behind the scenes who are telling this bots what information to copy and what not to copy.
We can already see that all AI tools have a huge bias and they are not neutral in most cases, but clearly influenced by people who paid for them to be created.

I think they also violated and abused everyone who is using chrome browser and other g00gle products, because they clearly used all of us for AI training, without our consent.

I tested Brave AI few times and this crap clearly invented some stuff by mixing true and false information into one big mess.

I'll be here all year folks!   ;)   :P


So true.  Luckily that is a problem that could be solved by looking at the search industry.  robots.txt was created to tell a search engine which areas of the site to parse and which to ignore.  There is no reason a bot cannot stick to those restrictions as well.

Good luck I hear you say?  It's true that search engines are not required to comply with these requests, but those that do are generally more respected.   No bot maker will care about respect, but he will care once he and his clients get hit with cease and desist notices due to copyright issues.

Every website has a standard boilerplate cover all copyright.   A webmaster could change that wording to clarify proper use - as described in the robots.txt file - and offer reasonable copyright to the allowed areas only.    If a bot disrespects the robots.txt then the bot owner and maker could be held libel for copyright.

Anyone who torrents has received a threatening letter from their ISP about copyright.  Most of the time these can be ignored, unless you are a abusive seeder.  Image the bot owners being hit with these letters through their ISP?   And if they go through a VPN, the copyright owners will sue the VPN to shut you off or shut down.  Who do you think has more money to spend on lawsuits - professional content creators or VPN operators?

I want to quote Purdue Online Writing Lab College of Liberal Arts, Purdue University here,
''Generally, common knowledge is information that someone finds undocumented in at least five credible sources. For example, writing is difficult,” is considered common knowledge in the field of composition studies because at least five credible sources can back the claim up.
Remember the golden rule: When in doubt, just cite.''
Source: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/avoiding_plagiarism/common-knowledge_attribution.html

If you think any AI chatbot/agent knows more about your Phd or can explain/present it better than you, then perhaps you have not done a proper job ;D. If you are taking AI help, you should mention the part which AI prepared for you, otherwise, even in use cases where it is not plagiarism, it is ethically wrong.
 
YES, 100%, unless forum has a dual policy for AI usage, separating buissness/project owners creating ANN threads from common members.

Can you please specify who among reputed members ever propageted this so-called simplistic view of banning any use of AI in the forum?
   

It is clear that you have not used the AI very much. You and LoyceV. Because in those same cases, like when it says that Satoshi launched bitcoin in 2009, it doesn't quote, but in many others it does back up what it says with links, and you can ask it to give you more or you can program it by default so that every thing it tells you is backed up by a link.


So, do you already know what this thread is about? That non-plagiarism is what it's about.

For your information the moderators do act in many cases of AI usage, as it seems you didn't know judging by your first post on this thread.


That's a great bullshit right there. The umpteenth sign of Luddism in this forum. The AI saves me time, it makes me the summary of my thesis focused on a public presentation and I only have to check it, in the same way that what professional translators do is to pass the texts through the AI (before automatic translators) and check it. I know this firsthand.


Have you reported the OP in question for plagiarism?


Here you go, smarty pants.

Should this forum ban the use of chatbots and AI entirely? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5501392.0)

86% in favor. Keep making a fool of yourself please I am having a lot of fun.

 ;D

I wonder whether the result would be different if the poll thread created by highly-reputable member (have lots of positive feedback, received merit and posts) who don't use chatbot/AI. Based on neutral tag date and thread date, IMO that user create that thread in frustration after other member caught him using chatbot/AI.

Your quote below is wrong. It's assigned to my name, but I didn't say that. You did. I am talking about this one:

I don't keep track, no. But I have seen complaints by users who claim that they reported clear AI use and plagiarism in post creation on the forum but the reports were never handled accordingly. Hence my initial reply in your thread.

Nice trick, but since tricks are for kids, let's dwell into details.
Lets start with esablishing the creditibily of OP of the poll cum topic you mentioned; (I will tell you in a moment why it is important?)

Apart from this also look at the replies of reputed members regarding OP,



Now I think there is a high chance that it certainly did provide a negative context which might have reflected in the extreme poll results because the poll had limited options.  
I have read all 3 pages of that poll and it is eveident that not even a single member is having a simplistic view (including yours) to ban any use case of AI. The common theme was that the 'use of AI specifically for writting posts is not good' while acknowledging the importance of AI in other fields of life (precisely my position). No member is arguing that any use of AI should be banned, which was my point,
You can prove me wrong by quoting the post/s from the poll discussion.

---

Now I know the answer to your following question,

That is because you keep changing goal posts :D. From Phd holder to Professional Translators. ;D. I will not respond this time because I am sure next time you will come up with a carpenter ;D.

No, and I have already explained my reasons (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5534279.msg65136607#msg65136607) in this thread in a 100% similar case.
You can check my trust feedback though,
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/03/14/0VObb.png

---

Edit: The Poll has 4 pages, not 3 ;D. I am human only not AI  ;D ;D

As mentioned, no one is against the AI but what people does is just copy paste the stuff from AI chatbox and consider/replicate as their own content which is wrong and even by the rules it's violation that is what my point is. I think the purpose of forum is clear, we are here to discuss about crypto either it's right or wrong should be coming from an actual person and if we use AI tool to create those contents then the purpose of this forum is obsolete, we can simply use AI to get the information about crypto.

When you base your argument on what would have happened if what actually happened had not happened, you are philosophizing, which is more or less the same as bullshitting. Want another example? Here you go:


And if you want it from one with more reputation here you go:


It is clear that there are many more and I have made it clear. I will not give you more examples because I am tired of it.


Fixed.


Check nutildah's thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.0) and you will see that many reports are acted upon.


No trick, on the contrary you are not going to trick me. I don't have to prove that the bullshit you say is bullshit, if you want to prove otherwise start bringing here quotes from reputable members defending the use of AI in the forum. Or open threads defending its use by those reputable members, because saying that if threads were opened in this respect as ABCbits says, the outcome would be favorable is a giant mountain of bullshit. I say this from experience because I am the only one who opens threads about it and it has only been after quite a while because the initial general reaction was totally negative.


So what bullshit were you saying about forum policy? If the forum rules considered plagiarism using an AI to present your business the OP would have been banned long ago and the thread trashed.

I never shifted the burden of proof on you (although we both were making claims). I did bear that by going through all the posts in the poll thread you suggested. Now that I have provided my argument by stating the dominant theme of the thread you want me to quote 30+ replies (sending alarms to so many members) here, no thank you.
Also stop strawmaning (I know you have years of practice but try it) every time. I never said reputable members are defending use of AI. I said they do not have a simplistic view of banning any AI usage in this forum.
Although I agree with ABCbits and can open a thread asking for open voting if you are willing to make a bet ($100 onwards). The title will be, 'Do you have a simplistic view of banning any AI usage in this forum?' Yes or NO.       
Now, let's see you put your money where your mouth is.

Please read again, hopefully, you will find another strawman.

Who do you think you are, you moron? I have to open a thread just because you say so and make a bet on your terms about whatever you feel like? You can shove it up your ass.

The facts are that I’m the only one who has opened constructive and positive threads about the use of AI on the forum, and anyone with eyes can see the opinions there. You go ahead and keep spewing your bullshit about fallacies and insisting that I have to prove whatever you feel like.

Aside from being one of the biggest bullshitters on the forum (on the level of BenCodie, meaning lots of text full of nonsense) you’re a well-known ass-licker. It’s no coincidence that the first person you put on your trust list was your manager.

Half-strawman this time (see, this isn't that difficult). I said I will open the thread. And my terms? I thought you asked for it word by word ;D although someone can easily intrepret it as ass licking as well,


hahaha really! Please, we still have 15 days.

Yeah, I like it hairy. It tastes good. Although I have criticized him too much in the past, consider it as rough ass licking.

Edit: You can find a glimpse of our intimacy here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5507466.msg64677264#msg64677264) and here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5507466.msg64679063#msg64679063). Numerous other times I have criticized/praised him but since you are so addicted to ass licking I can't do anything about your perception. My manager always takes criticism positively. Recently, he acted boldly and decisively (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5522151.msg65097923#msg65097923) and this was the tipping point for me to include him on my trustlist. He has done quite an innovations for fairly conducting poker events which I can tell you in details but then it will really feel like ass licking to me as well ;D. All I can say is that he is a man of high standards, and I am learning a lot from him.

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2025/03/14/0j1dg.png

Image is generated by Meta AI.

Since you are an ass licker what you do is lick certain people's asses and go cocky with others. This tone of superiority and accuse me of alleged fallacies and come here to the thread to say that I have to prove I do not know what you do not have it with your campaign manager for example or with others.

Keep talking bullshit, ass licker, I will continue to talk about the reasonable use of AI on the forum ignoring what an ass licker like you has to say.

I think you misunderstood my statement. What i meant was whether the percentage distribution (Yes, No and Miscellaneous) would be different. And by highly-reputable member, i mean the one who create such thread (along with the pool) rather than their statement.

No, I did not misunderstand. Thinking about what would have happened if something different had happened than what actually happened is something common in us humans, but we must be aware that it is a matter of philosophy, of mental speculation.

And as I have also said, I have created a few threads on the subject and what I have received is mostly negative or skeptical opinions some even delusional by what the ass-kisser calls highly reputed members. That is a fact about what has happened.

If you see my thread you will see that:

Acceptable uses of AI in the forum (unofficial) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5530909.0)

In it we have, among other things, a so-called highly reputed member who insisted until I reported my own post and was marked as bad (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5530909.msg65096717#msg65096717) that using AI as a search engine and posting links contravened the forum rules.

A troll thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5532844.msg65088945#msg65088945) in response to defend that there is no legitimate AI thread on the forum that received 11 merits by another so-called highly reputed member, although he did qualify that there is only one legitimate use. I listed as many as 9.

This very thread, in which we are talking about someone who uses the AI to make the presentation of his business and comes another so-called highly reputed member (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5534279.msg65158819#msg65158819), to protest that the moderators do not act in many case against AI copy-paste, which is false and has nothing to do more than tangentially with the subject of the thread.

Another so-called highly reputed member who equates any use of AI with verbal diarrhea (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5534279.msg65160009#msg65160009) in this and other threads.

These are all facts about what happened, not about what might have happened if what happened had not happened, and there are plenty more on the forum.

Now, does it make any sense to raise a poll on the rules I raise? No, because whoever opposes it will be making a fool of himself. I opened this thread because so far the forum has only seen AI from the negative point of view, as if AI can only be used for copy-paste without citing the source, or perhaps to post an AI image generated to make a joke.

I have been using AI on a daily basis for many months, outside of the forum, and I have never used it to copy-paste something generated by it without citing the source.

Edit 11 hours later: time to lock this thread I think since the doubt that originated the thread has been clarified and the conversation lately is drifting from the initial topic. If anyone believes it is necessary to comment something, please send me a PM (everyone except the smartass).