AI-generated post discussion thread: how to identify & report

[Flexystar]

This thread seems to have mixed debate about the AI tools and whether to rely on them or not. It's pity that we created the AI tools to do the stuff and now we are not able to identify whether it was our tool that created it or not. AI simply nailed it.

I am not sure how useful it could be but they are making various tools and also experimenting with the AI Content Checker. I have recently found AI Content Detector Chrome Extension brought to us by Copyleaks. Obviously it might be just another addition to the list of OP and is easy to use tool.

You just add it to the chrome as extension and whatever you copy on screen will get pasted and detected by the extension.

They have actually segregated the detection in following types:
GPT4 Content
ChatGPT
Bard
Human
AI + Human.

What caught my eye is the last one. AI+Human text detection could be very useful on the forum since we are seeing examples where people are just modifying some text with their own text. 

Will this extension be very useful?

[1714680985]

1714680985

[Sexylizzy2813]

How I wish the Forum would have something that can identify an AI post without stressing mods or other members who check to identify such users.
Or when posting using AI the post shouldn't be allowed, like the Forum should have an inbuilt AI detector that won't allow the user to drop the post and it should be having a red sign that the post is an AI post.

It's not so easy. Let's see on this user Adams0001. Usually he makes some edits to the texts so detectors don't easily catch him. You can probably catch him manually, but it will take lots of time. If you'll read his texts you'll see that some of them are kind of technical, people don't speak that way usually. So as human beings we can see that it is not natural. But AI detectors sometimes don't see the same.

But he made at least one big mistake:

It is difficult to determine if cryptocurrencies will survive indefinitely. Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual asset that is secure through encryption and is decentralized, meaning it is not controlled by a single body. It is frequently used as a means of exchange and is available for trading on internet exchanges.

Cryptocurrency has grown in popularity in recent years as a means of doing transactions that are faster, cheaper, and more secure than traditional methods. However, cryptocurrency's future is uncertain, and it is possible that it will not last forever. One of the most significant difficulties for bitcoin is regulatory ambiguity. Many governments around the world are still attempting to figure out how to regulate bitcoin. This has resulted in a lack of clarity and consistency in the regulatory framework, which can lead to market uncertainty and volatility. This, in turn, may make it difficult for businesses and individuals to use cryptocurrencies, limiting its acceptance and threatening its long-term survival.

This post is easily detected by each detector with 99%+. Moreover we can check it with a plagiarism tool like text.ru and see results which are characterful for AI written: big parts taken from some other texts sometimes with whole phrases.


So now we are sure he is using AI, but how can a detector know it about some other texts with automated results of 0% probability?

I tried to get three posts of him for AI Spam Report Reference Thread, but changes he makes (sometimes he just deletes some parts of text) make it harder. Some texts have 60%+ of AI probability, some have 50%+, and I'm not motivated to spend too much time on him. So automated detectors failed.

If a user, let's take the case of this Adams0001 if he keeps editing without being found as an AI user, can't it be seen as someone who's not using AI because of the editing?
Since the tool you're using failed to detect his post while using AI, are there no other means to find him guilty of using AI?

[jokers10]

If a user, let's take the case of this Adams0001 if he keeps editing without being found as an AI user, can't it be seen as someone who's not using AI because of the editing?
Since the tool you're using failed to detect his post while using AI, are there no other means to find him guilty of using AI?

He uses, and we know it, and he knows it (he just deleted the mentioned post when he saw that he was caught). But even if someone will wish to spend time for making more proofs (there are some options of proving even for those who make small edits of texts, but it takes time) that he uses AI all we'll get is deleting of posts with proven AI usage. Too much time to spend for not too big result.

But you talked not about how to ignore that someone uses AI if he edits his posts good enough not to be caught by automated detectors, but how to prevent spamming forum with AI texts, right? Here we have an example of why is it not so easy. Automated tools are not as good as we could wish. So some part of the ones who use AI are still here and use AI, and it takes time for catching them, and no automated tool can fully automate this process.

[NotATether]

But he made at least one big mistake:

It is difficult to determine if cryptocurrencies will survive indefinitely. Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual asset that is secure through encryption and is decentralized, meaning it is not controlled by a single body. It is frequently used as a means of exchange and is available for trading on internet exchanges.

If the post beginning sounds like the answer to a prompt, then there's a high chance of it being an AI post. I mean, come on, "It is difficult to determine if cryptocurrencies will survive indefinitely"? What kind of person on this forum would write that? (Besides Peter Schiff's known trolls) For everyone here, it is very easy to determine that at least the majority of popular coins are here to stay, so if you're writing something that sounds like what an Oxford professor in a research paper would write, then your posting days are strictly numbered.

[jokers10]

posting days are strictly numbered.

That's right. If they think that the worst thing they can face is being detected as AI writers and then getting neutral or negative tag, then no. As I showed, AI uses ready patterns for writing so there are several cases when AI writers were reported as plagiarists (who they really are, because posting what was written by AI not saying that, is plagiarism anyway) and were permanently banned. So my advice for all of them is to stop using AI for posting and delete all AI posts they left. Because otherwise sooner or later they all will be caught and get negative tags or ban.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

posting days are strictly numbered.

That's right. If they think that the worst thing they can face is being detected as AI writers and then getting neutral or negative tag, then no. As I showed, AI uses ready patterns for writing so there are several cases when AI writers were reported as plagiarists (who they really are, because posting what was written by AI not saying that, is plagiarism anyway) and were permanently banned. So my advice for all of them is to stop using AI for posting and delete all AI posts they left. Because otherwise sooner or later they all will be caught and get negative tags or ban.

And not only that post created by A.I are plagiarized, but are also totally useless, as they add no value to forum discussion. Because though they may sound super brilliant, they lack that human-to-human feeling (expression) that a normal conversation ought to have, and as such I wish to thank our forum moderators who have always been working hard just to flush away such people off this forum who add no value here.

However, I think the job of detecting an A.I poster can best be done by human and not any online tool.

[jokers10]

Well, Adams0001 decided to write me a PM saying that it was an occasional case, that he is good and never uses AI. He occasionally used the same words as in some other text in Internet. Main mistake is not to delete all AI written posts. If I said that I'm too lazy to catch all his AI written posts and prove it, it doesn't mean it is so hard that no one will see.

I just took randomly one of his recent posts more.

An additional threat to consider is a market crash. High-risk businesses are frequently linked to the overall health of the economy, and if the economy worsens, the value of your investments may plummet. is the risk of fraud, which is all too typical in high-risk businesses. Before investing, always perform due diligence and examine the company, its management, and its financials. It's crucial to keep in mind that high-risk industries are frequently more vulnerable to regulatory changes and political dangers. A change in government rules, for example, might significantly alter the playing field for a sector and impact the value of your investment. Despite the hazards, high-risk businesses can yield significant rewards to investors. someone can properly navigate them. Understanding the risks and diversifying your portfolio are the keys to success. Diversification is essential since it spreads risk and reduces the impact of any single investment.

First let's look at the grammar. As you can see English is not my mother tongue so I can't be an expert, but it looks like Adams0001 writes in nearly perfect language. Native speakers can confirm or not, but online grammar checkers say he is great.

And unexpectedly we see that there are two incomplete sentences in this post (marked with yellow; looks like he deleted some parts not to be detected). Strange, right?

Let's ask some detectors if this is human written? Copyleaks says no, 72.3% of probability fir AI, Hivemoderation says no, 58.1% likely to contain AI Generated Text, Sapling says no, 86.3% for fake.

Okay, let's detect for plagiarism with text.ru. And what was expected, we see that this post is copied from invstr.com/risks-and-rewards-of-investing/ for 47%!!! Nearly half of this text entirely from some single other source!



And moreover each time we see that a plagiarism tool doesn't say that there are many others who read some texts in Internet and used the same words. No, it finds an exact text which was a base for AI to generate this exact post. But there are hundreds of millions users in Internet who writes in English and read some texts. How can they not say some way the same things with the same words? It doesn't happen so usually, and even if here was an outstanding case, then not two in a row.

And you know, I decided to go through the challenge. I decided to check all my own words from the text above with the same 4 tools I used for Adams0001's post. Copyleaks gives 79% of probability for Human, Hivemoderation gives 0% likely to contain AI Generated Text, Sapling gives 7.6% for fake, Text.ru says 100% unique. As expected, because I really wrote everything of this by myself. And reading other texts in Internet didn't make me writing like AI.

[Sexylizzy2813]

If a user, let's take the case of this Adams0001 if he keeps editing without being found as an AI user, can't it be seen as someone who's not using AI because of the editing?
Since the tool you're using failed to detect his post while using AI, are there no other means to find him guilty of using AI?

He uses, and we know it, and he knows it (he just deleted the mentioned post when he saw that he was caught). But even if someone will wish to spend time for making more proofs (there are some options of proving even for those who make small edits of texts, but it takes time) that he uses AI all we'll get is deleting of posts with proven AI usage. Too much time to spend for not too big result.

Ok let's say he knows that there have been some trace of him using AI and with time he'll be caught without him defending himself. With him deleting or editing his post knowing when he wants to be caught, can't you guys drop a warning sign for him because without that he'll keep doing his thing, can't it be done that way?
He thinks he's smart but he's not, using AI is a sign of laziness I'll keep saying it.

[jokers10]

Ok let's say he knows that there have been some trace of him using AI and with time he'll be caught without him defending himself. With him deleting or editing his post knowing when he wants to be caught, can't you guys drop a warning sign for him because without that he'll keep doing his thing, can't it be done that way?
He thinks he's smart but he's not, using AI is a sign of laziness I'll keep saying it.

You can do it by yourself if you have enough free time. Some forum users do warn others when they see AI usage. I don't remember when some AI user stopped just because of warning from another regular user. They sometimes start to worry when they see how their posts are starting being deleted or when they see tags in their profile. But majority of AI users have many accounts and they usually have more offenses, so they start doing the same from other accounts. I remember two cases when someone was caught, said that he is sorry, that he understood his mistake and stopped using AI, while staying on the forum with not so bad posts. Well, I think they'll restore their reputation with time. But majority will just use other accs from their mults.

[LoyceV]

What's the verdict on this one?

Bitcointalk is a well-known forum in the crypto industry where being a reputable member is like a dream for many. There are some security measures that can be taken to protect your bitcoin talk account from being stolen or hacked. A user can add secret questions, and stake their BTC address in the forum to protect their account. Despite this sometimes accounts got hacked and are taken by hackers.

It's partially incorrect and sounds very much like chat AI spam/plagiarism.

[DVlog]

What's the verdict on this one?

Bitcointalk is a well-known forum in the crypto industry where being a reputable member is like a dream for many. There are some security measures that can be taken to protect your bitcoin talk account from being stolen or hacked. A user can add secret questions, and stake their BTC address in the forum to protect their account. Despite this sometimes accounts got hacked and are taken by hackers.

It's partially incorrect and sounds very much like chat AI spam/plagiarism.

This can be partially incorrect but i haven't use any kind of tools to wrote it nor i copy it from somewhere. I only use Grammarly to fix some minor grammar mistake. I am not sure why you think this is a chat AI spam or plagiarism!! You can check my old post too i have never been accused of using AI tools.

[jokers10]

What's the verdict on this one?

Bitcointalk is a well-known forum in the crypto industry where being a reputable member is like a dream for many. There are some security measures that can be taken to protect your bitcoin talk account from being stolen or hacked. A user can add secret questions, and stake their BTC address in the forum to protect their account. Despite this sometimes accounts got hacked and are taken by hackers.

It's partially incorrect and sounds very much like chat AI spam/plagiarism.

It looks like what can be AI written, but too short texts are not so easy to work with. What do we have? AI detecting: copyleaks 71.7% for Human, hivemoderation 76.4% for AI, sapling 0% for AI. Text.ru says this text has borrowings.



So you can be right, there is a chance that this user uses AI. But these proofs are not enough for me for leaving a tag. Too short text, too few overlaps. If there are no multiple texts in a row from him with the same results, I'd prefer to wait for more data.

[Sexylizzy2813]

Ok let's say he knows that there have been some trace of him using AI and with time he'll be caught without him defending himself. With him deleting or editing his post knowing when he wants to be caught, can't you guys drop a warning sign for him because without that he'll keep doing his thing, can't it be done that way?
He thinks he's smart but he's not, using AI is a sign of laziness I'll keep saying it.

You can do it by yourself if you have enough free time. Some forum users do warn others when they see AI usage. I don't remember when some AI user stopped just because of warning from another regular user. They sometimes start to worry when they see how their posts are starting being deleted or when they see tags in their profile. But majority of AI users have many accounts and they usually have more offenses, so they start doing the same from other accounts. I remember two cases when someone was caught, said that he is sorry, that he understood his mistake and stopped using AI, while staying on the forum with not so bad posts. Well, I think they'll restore their reputation with time. But majority will just use other accs from their mults.

Doing it myself is some how with the way offenders take things  (like they take it personal and also bear grudges against you after smoking them out) is like they're doing the right thing especially those ones with higher ranks like hero and legendary, I'll prefer it should be done by those guys who have the power to banned lock post or delete post, to be clear higher authorities, they should be the ones to do that.
And those ones that get to have a rethink by apologizing after being caught are those who knows they have being messing up and coming back to reality means they still have the forum at heart, is good to give them a second chance but also keep an eye on them.

[DVlog]

So you can be right, there is a chance that this user uses AI. But these proofs are not enough for me for leaving a tag. Too short text, too few overlaps. If there are no multiple texts in a row from him with the same results, I'd prefer to wait for more data.

Is that possible that the use of Grammarly makes this post sounds AI-generated? If this is the case then I will stop using grammarly from now on.

[blckhawk]

Is that possible that the use of Grammarly makes this post sounds AI-generated? If this is the case then I will stop using grammarly from now on.

No need to worry about that, if you're using Grammarly to make sure your post are coherent or are in the correct manner, I don't see anything wrong with it. And iirc Grammarly only corrects your grammar so if your post is organic and you really did typed it up yourself then using a grammar correcting tool to make it more clean is acceptable in my opinion. If you're that worried then just don't use it, idk if AI detecting tools consider posts that have been polished by Grammarly to be a writing of an AI. Try the to write a paragraph or something then pass it under Grammarly's grammar checker then see if it's considered an AI writing, if it does then probably stop using it so you can avoid the hassle of having to explain that you don't use AI to write your post.

[jokers10]

So you can be right, there is a chance that this user uses AI. But these proofs are not enough for me for leaving a tag. Too short text, too few overlaps. If there are no multiple texts in a row from him with the same results, I'd prefer to wait for more data.

Is that possible that the use of Grammarly makes this post sounds AI-generated? If this is the case then I will stop using grammarly from now on.

Hardly, many people use it and there's no problem. What looks here like AI is that text is impersonal, written in general words, such texts can look like borrowed from somewhere else or written by AI. AI detectors also catch for combinations of words which are characteral for AI. I went through other your recent posts and I see no reason for searching for some other posts which can look like AI written.

If you want to improve your posting (because it probably has something what can be improved, if some reputable users have questions if you are using AI), then you probably should avoid impersonal trivial texts written in general words. Share what you think, what you feel, how you see. Grammar helpers won't make problems.

[tvplus006]

It occurred to me that ChatGPT often uses the same phrases when generating answers, and I was wondering how to ascertain which phrases are verifiably part of ChatGPT's response formula. Then it occurred to me, why not ask ChatGPT itself? So here it is, straight from the horses mouth:

Prompt:

Can you give me a list of phrases commonly included in ChatGPT responses? For example, I noticed that "It's worth noting," "In essence," "In summary," "Finally," "Overall," and "On the other hand" are all commonly found in ChatGPT-generated responses.

Response:

Certainly! While it's important to note that the language generated by ChatGPT can vary, here is a list of phrases that are commonly found in ChatGPT-generated responses:

1. It's worth noting
2. In essence
3. In summary
4. Finally
5. Overall
6. On the other hand
7. However
8. Moreover
9. Furthermore
10. Additionally
11. In addition
12. In conclusion
13. That being said
14. In light of
15. Nevertheless
16. In other words
17. As a result
18. Therefore
19. Consequently
20. To illustrate
21. For instance
22. In fact
23. As mentioned earlier
24. It is important to emphasize
25. Notably
26. Interestingly
27. Conversely
28. In contrast
29. Similarly
30. In a similar vein
31. On a related note
32. It is worth mentioning
33. Given these points
34. To summarize
35. In brief

Remember that the use of these phrases may vary depending on the context and style of the generated response.

...

You could continue your experiment and ask a similar question to ChatGPT:

Can you give me a list of phrases that people usually use? For example, I have noticed that in people's posts, the phrases "It is worth noting", "In essence", "In short", "Finally", "In general" and "On the other hand" are often found.

I will not publish the answer from ChatGPT here for the reason that in his answer you will find all the phrases that you published earlier.

And it is not surprising that ChatGPT uses the same expressions that are often used by people. In the end, it is thanks to such expressions that the answers in ChatGPT become more similar to people's messages and, accordingly, you cannot use such a list of phrases to identify a message as created by AI.

[jokers10]

you cannot use such a list of phrases to identify a message as created by AI.

This list interested me and I walked down it with searching. What can I say, the majority of those who use these phrases on the forum use them in natural posting, but there were several AI posters who were caught by this search. This experiment was not of big enough selection, so it could be just eventual. But right you are, we can't make any conclusions just basing on if someone uses these phrases or not. I use some of these phrases from time to time, many people with whom I speak offline in English use them. So it is not a proof for blaming.

[nutildah]

you cannot use such a list of phrases to identify a message as created by AI.

This list interested me and I walked down it with searching. What can I say, the majority of those who use these phrases on the forum use them in natural posting, but there were several AI posters who were caught by this search. This experiment was not of big enough selection, so it could be just eventual. But right you are, we can't make any conclusions just basing on if someone uses these phrases or not. I use some of these phrases from time to time, many people with whom I speak offline in English use them. So it is not a proof for blaming.

They are just one piece of the puzzle. They are an indicator, that combined with other such indicators, serves to reveal when a post has a strong likelihood of being written by AI.

Every criticism of attempting to identify AI posts that I've seen in this thread stems from honing in on one indicator and proclaiming it to be unreliable by itself. Which is true. Its the sum of all indicators that establishes a basis for assuming a post is AI-generated.

The strongest indicator thus far are the results of the detectors, and some seem to be better than others. If 2 detectors indicate a strong likelihood of a post containing AI-generated text, its safe to say that it does.

Also as has also been mentioned here previously, what matters more is if the post is considered spam or not. If the post contributes nothing original to the forum, which is the case for most AI-generated posts, then it should be deleted as spam, and 90% of the time it is.

[tvplus006]

They are just one piece of the puzzle. They are an indicator, that combined with other such indicators, serves to reveal when a post has a strong likelihood of being written by AI.

Every criticism of attempting to identify AI posts that I've seen in this thread stems from honing in on one indicator and proclaiming it to be unreliable by itself. Which is true. Its the sum of all indicators that establishes a basis for assuming a post is AI-generated.

The strongest indicator thus far are the results of the detectors, and some seem to be better than others. If 2 detectors indicate a strong likelihood of a post containing AI-generated text, its safe to say that it does.

Also as has also been mentioned here previously, what matters more is if the post is considered spam or not. If the post contributes nothing original to the forum, which is the case for most AI-generated posts, then it should be deleted as spam, and 90% of the time it is.

I did not mention artificial intelligence detectors in my message, I had a specific question about the list of phrases used by ChatGPT, which was published by you. As I reported earlier, your list of phrases prepared by ChatGPT is identical to the one that people use. That is, ChatGPT uses the same phrases that are used by people and for this reason you cannot use it for identification. Only if ChatGPT used phrases that are not used by people, it would be possible to consider such messages as created by artificial intelligence.