Doing scam for Using AI Tool in Signature Campaign

[Saira10]

This user is using the Ai tool that is prohibited in the Signature Campaign and doing scams of almost 80$ in the signature campaign. Most of the post of this user is written by AI Text Generated Tool please take a look and check the details I have mentioned.
Scammer profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3431739

AI Tool Generated Content

someone's habit of making topics that are trending outside the forum will be brought to the forum as well, this happens because these issues are being widely discussed such as COVID-19, the Russia-Ukraine war, and the rejection of the USD rejection. so often such topics become the dominant topics of discussion in forum a because of their relevance to the current situation and their impact on everyday life.
However, in bringing such topics to forums it is sometimes important to ensure that the information shared is accurate and valid, and that the discussion proceeds in a way that is dignified and respectful of different views. This will help ensure that the discussion goes well and benefits all members involved in the discussion. I think it's normal for things like that to happen in forums about discussing topics that are being talked about outside the forum.

Proof Links:

[/url]

Archive

Another AI Written Text and Many more post

What we need to know Entrepreneurship education plays a very good role in developing the insights and skills of students and students. Because through entrepreneurship education we can help foster an entrepreneurial spirit among the younger generation and prepare them to face challenges and opportunities in today's business world.

Entrepreneurship education at schools and universities can provide opportunities for students to learn about various aspects of business such as business planning, management, marketing, finance and innovation. This really helps them understand the processes and strategies involved in starting and running a business. And with entrepreneurship education can also help improve creativity skills, problem solving, leadership and communication skills. because this is really needed in developing an entrepreneurial spirit and preparing students to become successful entrepreneurs.

Especially with today's economy, where employment opportunities are limited, having entrepreneurial knowledge and skills can provide a good alternative for students and students to create their own jobs. They can see new business opportunities, develop innovative ideas in business and turn them into successful businesses. The Government's role in emphasizing the entrepreneurship education curriculum in schools and universities. With the development of a curriculum that includes entrepreneurship subjects, training and guidance for teachers and lecturers to increase their understanding of entrepreneurship.

With a strong entrepreneurship education, there will be an increase in the number of innovative and competitive young entrepreneurs, which in turn will drive economic growth, create jobs, and have a positive impact on society as a whole.

Proof links:



Archive

AI Generated Content Regularly Uses in Signature compaign

Social media was originally created as a platform to socialize and connect with people from all over the world. However, over time, social media users began to use it as a means of marketing their business. This is because social media is an effective way to promote products or services to a wider audience and build relationships with customers.

It is undeniable that many businesses and companies use social media to expand market reach and attract new customers. By using the right social media platforms, businesses can build their brand, generate more sales, and increase their online presence. However, that does not mean that social media has lost its original function as a means of socializing. Many social media users still use it to connect with friends and family, expand social networks, and seek information and entertainment.

In conclusion, even though social media is currently also used for business, this platform still maintains its function as a means to socialize and connect with other people.

Proof Links:




Archive

[NeuroticFish]

I don't have any experience with that tool so I don't know how accurate it is, hence I've given that account only a neutral tag.
This should draw enough attention and I expect campaign managers will check this out.

[Cantsay]

This is interesting, first the accused user exposed another user @Shan85 for double dipping in signature campiagn and now he's being accused of using AI to generate post to earn from signature.

I have caught some users in the past using AI to generate post here in the forum and if I'm to use the same criteria or tools I used bask then to judge this present case then I'll say the accused is guilty, although I couldn't get chatGPT to generate a similar post for me just be copying and pasting the title of the thread like I did in previous cases.

But let's see what he has to say concerning this and if it turns out to be true then he's no different from @Shan85.
@Saira10 I saw that you dropped a post in the signature thread that the accused user participated in, you should also consider PMing the campaign manager and also @bbigtart for a quicker response.

[acroman08]

so I got curious and run the quoted texts shared by the OP through the AI content detector that can be found on nutildah's thread AI-generated post discussion thread: how to identify & report. after running the quoted texts through the AI content detectors, all of them(at least the ones that I can access) shows a result that the texts contains AI content.

for the first quoted text

for the second quoted text

for the third quoted text

[AB de Royse777]

Scammer profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3431739

PM me a bech32 address. I am observing the thread. If he found guilty then you will receive the payment instead of him.

Cheers,

[robelneo]

This is interesting, first the accused user exposed another user @Shan85 for double dipping in signature campiagn and now he's being accused of using AI to generate post to earn from signature.

I deleted my positive feedback it's very likely that he's using AI to create these posts 40% is already too high to consider a post using AI it's ironic for someone to catch a cheater when he himself is a cheater, but of course, we like to hear his side of the story.

If part of his posting habit is checking meta he'll encounter many threads against the use of and if he is reading the rules of the campaign he is applying they have big warnings about the use of AI, Royse even rewards people who can catch participants of his campaign using AI.

Very unfortunate he is getting a lot of merits just checked his account and he is still getting a lot of it, he's good for senior account rank but he blew it.

[_BlackStar]

This is interesting, first the accused user exposed another user @Shan85 for double dipping in signature campiagn and now he's being accused of using AI to generate post to earn from signature.

Looks like someone has managed to get his revenge properly, just my hunch.

But let's see what he has to say concerning this and if it turns out to be true then he's no different from @Shan85.
@Saira10 I saw that you dropped a post in the signature thread that the accused user participated in, you should also consider PMing the campaign manager and also @bbigtart for a quicker response.

The @Shan85 case is of course very different from the case that was alleged against @bbigtart. @bbigtart seems to have cheat himself about the quality of posts that seem to be made up of his thoughts and knowledge - but that would be a lie if in the end he just used AI to create those posts. The campaign manager banned him from any campaign - and now he deserves to be on the manager's blacklist.

I also don't know if a user using AI deserves to be called scammer or not, but he's just dishonest and have no ethics about its quality which is not liked by any manager and many forum members in principle.

[coin-investor]

I also don't know if a user using AI deserves to be called a scammer or not, but he's just dishonest and have no ethics about its quality which is not liked by any manager and many forum members in principle.

He can be considered a scammer because he is getting paid to do the right thing and he is ripping his manager off money that comes from advertisers, if he is not a part of the campaign we can just call him spammer or forum rule breaker, but the fact that he is getting incentivized for posting and he has rules coming from bounty manager to follow, so he is a cheater and a scammer if proven guilty.

[Husires]

Can you add links through which we can verify that the text is written by AI, or at least send it to me in private, or I will send some texts to you? I see many posts that seem unrelated to the topic wording or closer to AI than a personal post.

I also don't know if a user using AI deserves to be called scammer or not, but he's just dishonest and have no ethics about its quality which is not liked by any manager and many forum members in principle.

The user has used AI to get more money while wearing a signature, which is a kind of scam, so it deserves a negative sign whenever this information is confirmed.

But let's see what he has to say concerning this and if it turns out to be true then he's no different from @Shan85.
@Saira10 I saw that you dropped a post in the signature thread that the accused user participated in, you should also consider PMing the campaign manager and also @bbigtart for a quicker response.

The @Shan85 case is of course very different from the case that was alleged against @bbigtart.

The funny thing about the story is that @bbigtart was the one who discovered @Shan85's scam

Hello Hhampuz, Sorry in advance if I saw it wrong and misjudged.

I saw on the Speandsheet @Shan85 not using the signature code Duelbits but he is receiving payouts every week. He also uses the signature campaign BetterCallRaul.it which is managed by Royse777. And there he also gets paid every week.

I do not mean anything. It's just that I don't think it's fair if he gets paid from two different signature campaigns every week.

[avp2306]

I also don't know if a user using AI deserves to be called a scammer or not, but he's just dishonest and have no ethics about its quality which is not liked by any manager and many forum members in principle.

He can be considered a scammer because he is getting paid to do the right thing and he is ripping his manager off money that comes from advertisers, if he is not a part of the campaign we can just call him spammer or forum rule breaker, but the fact that he is getting incentivized for posting and he has rules coming from bounty manager to follow, so he is a cheater and a scammer if proven guilty.

He just waste waste the opportunity given by the campaign manager. If he just do pure effort to post quality contents for sure he will never go in that situation. But unfortunately his lazy so I agree to people calling him a scammer since he choose to cheat on his campaign just to get money without doing big efforts.

Good that he is busted since this case remind to other people that they should not use AI tool to take advantage on their campaigns.

[Saira10]

Can you add links through which we can verify that the text is written by AI, or at least send it to me in private, or I will send some texts to you? I see many posts that seem unrelated to the topic wording or closer to AI than a personal post.

Sure I will provide the links to verify content is AI-written Take a look at these links and verify. I randomly see his post while reading I see it was not human generated post then I checked by AI detected Tools this user created most of his posts with AI tools.

https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector/c815163eaf5508956a21ad07bba8ea06
https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector/eea4e4fa13f01937c9c191db2142f431
https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector/066c47e3836fd2ddc4176137d771b150

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/05/27/64e70e285566d1f24476c1deebd5f403.jpeg
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/05/27/cc49b055c7da5f54668f78c4d6ad86fc.jpeg
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/05/27/a0e4b20e6d2f43e9ee6bd87735842bc4.jpeg
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/05/27/4efd6a875fdb0f64bfcfc0b8fb2ddc04.jpeg

[elevates]

I checked the posted content using undetectable.ai. A paid tool that detect whether a content is written using any AI app. If you are willing to pay a subscription fee, it will then rewrite the same content that will be undetectable to a certain extent. The app does have a good reputation in detecting AI content. The result are similar to what OP and other fellow members have posted on this thread.



I won't be surprised  to find that Saira10 is another alt account of Shan85. When you check the post history 80% are for application for bounty campaign.

Anyways this user should be removed immediately from the bounty campaign. As there are multiple examples submitted by fellow members proving a use of an AI to generate replies. When money is involved it should be considered as a scam. Those who have given positive trust should reconsider it.

Another example that the signature campaign BM's should work on their onboarding process and to save themselves of such scams. A good idea would be to hire an individual only to detect whether participants under their signature campaign are using AI.

[bbigtart]

I admit that I was wrong. I used AI ChatGPT at first I didn't know it was strictly banned in forums. But these few days I just found out, coupled with this incident I also realized that what I did was wrong and fatal.

I'm still new to this forum, if it's a fatal and unforgivable mistake, I'll also understand.

For everything I apologize, especially for @Royse777 because I have made a mistake that caused many parties to suffer from my mistake. To be honest, if I realized from the start maybe I could get away from AI ChatGPT. But not all of my posts are the result of AI ChatGPT, only a few.

I am ready to accept the consequences of what happened to my account. Even if I am labeled neutral, I will accept it because it is my own fault. If I am given another chance I will thank you.

[Poker Player]

I will refrain from tagging bbigtart in this case. I know my opinion is not the most popular here, as I understand that it is one thing for someone to engage in massive copy-pasting of AI-generated texts and another to use AI to gather information and from there rewrite, modify or extend what is generated. I see that in the case of bbigtart we would have both cases.

While here in the forum the debate focuses on how to stop AI from being used on it, outside this cave the debate is simply how it is already being integrated into our lives. The latest is that google is going to integrate it with the search engine. In the same way that first google lens came out and now you have it next to the search engine without having to go and open the App separately, the integration of AI with search engines will allow us to get more accurate information faster and with even less effort.

The debate reminds me of the people you would still meet years ago who refused to have cell phones because they said the powerful would have us monitored and such.

[WillyAp]

I deleted my positive feedback it's very likely that he's using AI to create these posts 40% is already too high to consider a post using AI it's ironic for someone to catch a cheater when he himself is a cheater, but of course, we like to hear his side of the story.

You need a thief to catch one;)
It helps knowing something to avoid something.
People cater for numbers, a social media profile with a million followers looks better than a profile with just 14. Figures doesn't it?

[SamReomo]

I admit that I was wrong. I used AI ChatGPT at first I didn't know it was strictly banned in forums. But these few days I just found out, coupled with this incident I also realized that what I did was wrong and fatal.

I'm still new to this forum, if it's a fatal and unforgivable mistake, I'll also understand.

For everything I apologize, especially for @Royse777 because I have made a mistake that caused many parties to suffer from my mistake. To be honest, if I realized from the start maybe I could get away from AI ChatGPT. But not all of my posts are the result of AI ChatGPT, only a few.

I am ready to accept the consequences of what happened to my account. Even if I am labeled neutral, I will accept it because it is my own fault. If I am given another chance I will thank you.

You were accepted in the campaign of Royse and you didn't read the rules?

PREVENT AI DOMINATION
This campaign is protected by Prevent AI Domination terms defined here:

💹📈 Bitcointalk Campaign Management 💪🔥 Signature & Bounty.

▶️ If I find campaign members breaching these terms, I will remove them from the campaign immediately.
▶️ If you find AI-written posts for this campaign and report them to me publicly or via PM, you will receive the weekly payment instead of the accused campaigner (if your report was successful). Please include as much evidence as possible when submitting a report.[/left]

This is quote from the signature campaign post where you were selected as a participant and if you read it carefully then it's clearly written that the manager is strongly against AI generated text and use of AI-written text is totally prohibited in all campaigns run by Royse sir. I think almost every campaign manager is against AI-written text because the AI-written text is generated without an effort from the user, and most of the time the AI generator could cause trouble with wrong information.

[yahoo62278]

I admit that I was wrong. I used AI ChatGPT at first I didn't know it was strictly banned in forums. But these few days I just found out, coupled with this incident I also realized that what I did was wrong and fatal.

I'm still new to this forum, if it's a fatal and unforgivable mistake, I'll also understand.

For everything I apologize, especially for @Royse777 because I have made a mistake that caused many parties to suffer from my mistake. To be honest, if I realized from the start maybe I could get away from AI ChatGPT. But not all of my posts are the result of AI ChatGPT, only a few.

I am ready to accept the consequences of what happened to my account. Even if I am labeled neutral, I will accept it because it is my own fault. If I am given another chance I will thank you.

You were accepted in the campaign of Royse and you didn't read the rules?

PREVENT AI DOMINATION
This campaign is protected by Prevent AI Domination terms defined here:

💹📈 Bitcointalk Campaign Management 💪🔥 Signature & Bounty.

▶️ If I find campaign members breaching these terms, I will remove them from the campaign immediately.
▶️ If you find AI-written posts for this campaign and report them to me publicly or via PM, you will receive the weekly payment instead of the accused campaigner (if your report was successful). Please include as much evidence as possible when submitting a report.[/left]

This is quote from the signature campaign post where you were selected as a participant and if you read it carefully then it's clearly written that the manager is strongly against AI generated text and use of AI-written text is totally prohibited in all campaigns run by Royse sir. I think almost every campaign manager is against AI-written text because the AI-written text is generated without an effort from the user, and most of the time the AI generator could cause trouble with wrong information.

The user was probably aware but is hoping for mercy because he admitted guilt. Ultimately it's up to the manager what happens, but I think people found guilty of this should be excluded from campaigns for a certain period of time. Hard lesson but 1 that needs taught.

[lovesmayfamilis]

This is interesting, first the accused user exposed another user @Shan85 for double dipping in signature campiagn and now he's being accused of using AI to generate post to earn from signature.

I have caught some users in the past using AI to generate post here in the forum and if I'm to use the same criteria or tools I used bask then to judge this present case then I'll say the accused is guilty, although I couldn't get chatGPT to generate a similar post for me just be copying and pasting the title of the thread like I did in previous cases.

But let's see what he has to say concerning this and if it turns out to be true then he's no different from @Shan85.
@Saira10 I saw that you dropped a post in the signature thread that the accused user participated in, you should also consider PMing the campaign manager and also @bbigtart for a quicker response.

Let's go further down the chain. If you check the address of the OP, then the statistics show that he is not clean as a tear either.
If you check the address: 0x7519671882ccbc4aA7254EEf144d8D7B854F9C8d, which first appeared on the forum, then the owner of it is an account that is banned. True, the post itself was deleted, which is not surprising for cheaters. And accordingly, the OP violates the prohibition rule.
Nothing personal to the OP, but the facts speak of breaking the rule.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5094661.msg62316151#msg62316151

[Eternad]

Another example that the signature campaign BM's should work on their onboarding process and to save themselves of such scams. A good idea would be to hire an individual only to detect whether participants under their signature campaign are using AI.

The pay grade for a bounty manager is only enough for them while adding extra employee that will check regularly each post will just an additional cost. Royse have a bounty program dedicated for busting this kind of cheating. I think it's already enough to bust them using the payment of the cheater.

I admit that I was wrong. I used AI ChatGPT at first I didn't know it was strictly banned in forums. But these few days I just found out, coupled with this incident I also realized that what I did was wrong and fatal.

Using of AI tool is not ban in the forum. You just violated the rules set by your manager for the campaign that you are currently working. It's up to the manager on how he will view this case especially the tagging. But use of AI is not banned in the forum.

[elevates]

Another example that the signature campaign BM's should work on their onboarding process and to save themselves of such scams. A good idea would be to hire an individual only to detect whether participants under their signature campaign are using AI.

The pay grade for a bounty manager is only enough for them while adding extra employee that will check regularly each post will just an additional cost. Royse have a bounty program dedicated for busting this kind of cheating. I think it's already enough to bust them using the payment of the cheater.

Doubt it!
A minimum of $50/week let's assume a BM earns. Hire someone who can detect for just $10 per week. Considering 5 projects the hired individual gets paid $50 per month. Nothing is impossible if a BM wants to safeguard the brand name. Being transparent and professional is an USP of a BM. Being proactive makes it more lucrative for a project to employ that BM.

[stompix]

The debate reminds me of the people you would still meet years ago who refused to have cell phones because they said the powerful would have us monitored and such.

But you're still not allowed to talk at your cellphone while driving a card without having a hands free device and there are plenty of places that ask you to turn it off.
Nobody really cares even in this forum if you're using AI to create your posts as long as you're not wearing a sig and you don't get paid for copy pasting answers, but in this case he did it for money and in a campaign that openly prohibits that, so yeah, it's quite close to being tag worthy.

[_BlackStar]

I admit that I was wrong. I used AI ChatGPT at first I didn't know it was strictly banned in forums. But these few days I just found out, coupled with this incident I also realized that what I did was wrong and fatal.

I'm still new to this forum, if it's a fatal and unforgivable mistake, I'll also understand.

For everything I apologize, especially for @Royse777 because I have made a mistake that caused many parties to suffer from my mistake. To be honest, if I realized from the start maybe I could get away from AI ChatGPT. But not all of my posts are the result of AI ChatGPT, only a few.

I think it's just an excuse basically expecting some affection from as many users as possible to forgive your mistake. Not only have you fooled the campaign manager, but you've also fooled many other users with the AI-generated quality of your posts.

I am ready to accept the consequences of what happened to my account. Even if I am labeled neutral, I will accept it because it is my own fault. If I am given another chance I will thank you.

The manager may blacklist you at campaign in future, but I think you are brave enough to admit mistakes and be ready to accept any consequences. But not only about neutral tags, now some users will exclude you from their trust list [~].

[SamReomo]

The user was probably aware but is hoping for mercy because he admitted guilt. Ultimately it's up to the manager what happens, but I think people found guilty of this should be excluded from campaigns for a certain period of time. Hard lesson but 1 that needs taught.

I agree with you, the best way to penalize such users is to not allow them to participate in signature campaigns for at least 2 weeks as a first time disciplinary measure, if a user still does that after that penalization than a long term punishment is a necessary action for those type of users. However, I don't think that a manager would accept such participants in their campaigns once again who have broken the rules already. I'm not against that favor, but a manager might not agree to allow such users because they don't want their reputation to be ruined once again.

In my opinion everyone who does a mistake for first time should be given a chance if the mistake is not of a damaging nature. The user has done an inappropriate act and is guilty for that, he's also asking for mercy because he knows that the act he has done wasn't a good thing. The best advice to bbigtart is to stop relying on ChatGPT and other such AI tools that can generate the text based on the questions. Do your own research and learn the topics deeply first and then answer it with proper knowledge and understanding without using artificial intelligence tools.

[robelneo]

In my opinion everyone who does a mistake for first time should be given a chance if the mistake is not of a damaging nature.

Using AI in a platform like this is damaging in nature and may result in a ban.

The user has done an inappropriate act and is guilty for that, he's also asking for mercy because he knows that the act he has done wasn't a good thing.

Did he become aware when this issue pops up or he already knows the rule before he got caught if so, he could have corrected it, and if he is honest enough he should inform the manager of his violation and promise to correct it and never do it again.

The best advice to bbigtart is to stop relying on ChatGPT and other such AI tools that can generate the text based on the questions. Do your own research and learn the topics deeply first and then answer it with proper knowledge and understanding without using artificial intelligence tools.

Your advice should not only be for bbigtart but for all of us here the rules about the usage of AI applies to all who post here, whether you're in a campaign or not.

[tabas]

The best advice to bbigtart is to stop relying on ChatGPT and other such AI tools that can generate the text based on the questions. Do your own research and learn the topics deeply first and then answer it with proper knowledge and understanding without using artificial intelligence tools.

Your advice should not only be for bbigtart but for all of us here the rules about the usage of AI applies to all who post here, whether you're in a campaign or not.

It's really for everyone who still hiding a secret and relying on these AI tools for their conversations and posts in the forum. Don't they like it when it's natural and they're thinking on their own of what they're going to say? We are not yet robots and then they use it for their own advantage and shows that they're only doing little efforts from the discussions. It's best to see them go with natural discussions and we're all for genuineness of the posts we do. There could still be few that's never caught and keep on doing it, don't worry time only can tell until someone catches them.

[Saisher]

While here in the forum the debate focuses on how to stop AI from being used on it, outside this cave the debate is simply how it is already being integrated into our lives. The latest is that google is going to integrate it with the search engine. In the same way that first google lens came out and now you have it next to the search engine without having to go and open the App separately, the integration of AI with search engines will allow us to get more accurate information faster and with even less effort.

The admin will not apply AI to a forum, any admin forum admin will not allow that,  the platform will try to have as much unique content as possible for generic traffic, if the admin will allow AI usage the search engine will not value a platform that is full of spam and its content copy pasted it will be relegated to second-grade site and will value more the source of the content.

[yahoo62278]

Let's go further down the chain. If you check the address of the OP, then the statistics show that he is not clean as a tear either.
If you check the address: 0x7519671882ccbc4aA7254EEf144d8D7B854F9C8d, which first appeared on the forum, then the owner of it is an account that is banned. True, the post itself was deleted, which is not surprising for cheaters. And accordingly, the OP violates the prohibition rule.
Nothing personal to the OP, but the facts speak of breaking the rule.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5094661.msg62316151#msg62316151

There are a lot of users who get banned and an  hour later are back with a new account. They're always caught because they're still using the same wallets or something silly like that. Getting banned is nothing to them because there is no penalty except maybe losing the account.

If the forum is going to ban users then they should IP ban or something stronger IMO.

[Poker Player]

Nobody really cares even in this forum if you're using AI to create your posts as long as you're not wearing a sig and you don't get paid for copy pasting answers,

It's surprising that you say that when you yourself have participated in a thread about the subject where people does not distinguish whether AI users wear a paid signature or not.

Let's see what a moderator has to say:

The forum soon will be overrun with low quality AI generated posts, just because there is a financial gain in it, it is easy to do and the tools are available to everyone.

It should be treated the same as plagiarism. Asking an AI something then copy and pasting the response is just as bad if not worse than plagiarism because it's not as easy to detect, though the posts do kind of stand out...

I don't see a distinction there as to whether the AI user wears a paid signature or not.

but in this case he did it for money and in a campaign that openly prohibits that, so yeah, it's quite close to being tag worthy.

I give you that, he broke the rules of a campaign he was participating in, and that's wrong, but the vision I have is not so far-fetched because at the moment he only has two neutral tags, while if we were talking about a $40 loan default (the approximate amount he earned for the signature campaign) his profile would a few red tags already.

[stompix]

Nobody really cares even in this forum if you're using AI to create your posts as long as you're not wearing a sig and you don't get paid for copy pasting answers,

It's surprising that you say that when you yourself have participated in a thread about the subject where people does not distinguish whether AI users wear a paid signature or not.

Yeah, and I stand by my opinion:
- copy pasting questions or topic titles into and from chatGPT brings nothing important to the discussion
- instead of doing so the user could simply say, ask chatGPT, just like those links with letmegooglethis for you
- trying to brag about how you asked the question to reveal some hidden secrets is just silly
- I can't really see much difference between this and plagiarism.

Copy-pasting an answer from Quora is plagiarism, copy-pasting from an AI that learned the answers scanning Quora should be....?

But, I still stand on the other too, nobody will be doing anything soon as long as money is not involved, plagiarism enforcement is down the drain with accounts getting caught and nothing getting done for weeks, so, even if one or two mods are thinking like this, overall the absolute majority just gave up.

I don't see a distinction there as to whether the AI user wears a paid signature or not.

And there shouldn't be, but again...

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

This is interesting, first the accused user exposed another user @Shan85 for double dipping in signature campiagn and now he's being accused of using AI to generate post to earn from signature.

Just imagine a cruel life like such, he's also doing what has been kicked against yet accusing someone doing almost same wrong he's doing, which means no one can be trusted these days, we need to be careful about the members of this forum we often come across without knowing what they are upto, i don't specifically know what benefits them with the use of this creative system of AI in making posts, i believe more are people are yet uncovered.

[AbuBhakar]

While here in the forum the debate focuses on how to stop AI from being used on it, outside this cave the debate is simply how it is already being integrated into our lives. The latest is that google is going to integrate it with the search engine. In the same way that first google lens came out and now you have it next to the search engine without having to go and open the App separately, the integration of AI with search engines will allow us to get more accurate information faster and with even less effort.

The admin will not apply AI to a forum, any admin forum admin will not allow that,  the platform will try to have as much unique content as possible for generic traffic, if the admin will allow AI usage the search engine will not value a platform that is full of spam and its content copy pasted it will be relegated to second-grade site and will value more the source of the content.

I believe he is referring to the application of AI on forum search bar but the data is limited to the content of the forum alone. This is just collecting data from previous post that we are doing manually when someone ask the same repetitive question.

The only concern is how the AI will validate the correctness of the opinion or content by someone in the forum. Maybe merit and reputation ratio of the source will be considered by the AI?

[nutildah]

What a shocking development to see the OP banned   another alt down the drain... this guy is losing alts quicker than he can rank them up

It is commendable for Royse777 to want to reward the OP for their finding, but I wish I would have read the thread to the big reveal before sending him merits for it  

Anyway, of course Saira10 is linked to other alt accounts. Firstly, Cat1 (just banned, lol):



Even though they later deleted it, Cat1 was the first one to post this address.

Then looking at another address owned by Cat1, I can see he is connected to a bunch of other accounts, including

Qurbanshah (banned)
Protocolkuttasaala
Ali 786

who are in turn connected to

Bahadurmunir (banned)
Thor00

https://bscscan.com/address/0xbcb793c8011411d5974bf7000f2e60d279d52737


who are in turn connected to a bunch of accounts I already connected in the Shan85 thread:

https://bscscan.com/address/0x7950c8895b2bba578b0886d79c0f4b6e14d380f6


among others. I mean my God this person has a shit ton of accounts. I'm out of energy but please feel free to verify/solidify the connections and I'll do some tagging/reporting tomorrow.

[bbigtart]

I don't mean to defend myself and expect mercy. because my mistake was indeed fatal, I was ready with the consequences (but still as an ordinary human being, I still hope there is a chance). Because I admit it was wrong and I also didn't fully read the rules given by Royse777.

But I see most of the people commenting here didn't see when I joined the signature campaign and when I made a post with chatgpt AI.

on this occasion I will straighten it out a bit (but I still admit that what I did was wrong and not justified). the two posts that I use via Chatgpt AI are where I haven't joined any campaign and the other is on May 23, at which time I have already joined the BetterCallRaul.it signature campaign managed by royse777. but less than a week after I registered as a participant there, the BetterCallRaul.it campaign has gone into Pause status so I haven't been paid either. (Of course with my cheating I don't deserve to be paid)

So please don't get me wrong on this as I don't feel or take payments from any of the campaigns. It's so pathetic to be accused of receiving payments from signature campaigns every week by defrauding the manager. This is not a defense, it's just that I wish everyone would judge me less about me receiving payments from the royse777 campaign every week in a deceptive manner.

And I'm grateful for the problem I'm having, I understand better and try to fix it and not repeat it in the future if I'm still given the chance.

The best advice to bbigtart is to stop relying on ChatGPT and other such AI tools that can generate the text based on the questions. Do your own research and learn the topics deeply first and then answer it with proper knowledge and understanding without using artificial intelligence tools.

Your advice should not only be for bbigtart but for all of us here the rules about the usage of AI applies to all who post here, whether you're in a campaign or not.

Thank you very much for the suggestions and constructive input for me in the future.

[_BlackStar]

And I'm grateful for the problem I'm having, I understand better and try to fix it and not repeat it in the future if I'm still given the chance.

I know some people will judge you too harshly, but it's only natural that you make mistakes. Regardless of whether you're not posting using AI while in signature campaign, you're actually using AI to increase your activity on the forum. This is wrong with your own ethics, which incidentally expects more merit to rank up. I don't know how many AI posts you've gotten since you did, that was mistake.

Right now I don't know if the manager will give you a second chance in his other campaigns, but I think he is quite professional in how to follow up on your case. The rules have been made, so maybe you are not one of the participants who meet the criteria again in the future.

[Xiaomie A1]

The admin will not apply AI to a forum, any admin forum admin will not allow that,  the platform will try to have as much unique content as possible for generic traffic, if the admin will allow AI usage the search engine will not value a platform that is full of spam and its content copy pasted it will be relegated to second-grade site and will value more the source of the content.

I also really support what you say because Admin does not allow content written with AI for this forum. But apart from this, I think what you did in the past in this forum was not necessarily liked by the Admin of this forum mate. That thing is using one wallet for two different accounts and it can still be found even if you delete it now.



Reference: https://ninjastic.space/address/0x4413f7e61d7a69dF948b0934B7f5cC1e7adb982f

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2361872.msg26029582#msg26029582 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5422122.msg61572597#msg61572597

I only checked a small part and haven't checked everything for your two accounts because it could have been done by other people who are more experienced in this forum. Hopefully you can be truly holy mate.

[LoyceV]

Admin does not allow content written with AI for this forum.

That's not true (unfortunately). Bots have to follow the same rules as humans.
What Admin doesn't allow, is plagiarism. And pretending a spambot's output is your own is plagiarism.

[examplens]

But I see most of the people commenting here didn't see when I joined the signature campaign and when I made a post with chatgpt AI.

on this occasion I will straighten it out a bit (but I still admit that what I did was wrong and not justified). the two posts that I use via Chatgpt AI are where I haven't joined any campaign and the other is on May 23, at which time I have already joined the BetterCallRaul.it signature campaign managed by royse777. but less than a week after I registered as a participant there, the BetterCallRaul.it campaign has gone into Pause status so I haven't been paid either. (Of course with my cheating I don't deserve to be paid)

It seems to me that you did not understand the essence of your mistake at all and it's not just about your dishonest attempt to earn $50 from a signature campaign.
Why did you think that it can be a constructive discussion if AI writes posts for you? Did you think that each of us knows how to use ChatGPT and we don't need an intermediary if we want his "opinion"?

[SatoPrincess]

This week has been entertaining, I have been following the drama from from when shan85 was exposed by bbigtart for wearing double signatures at the same time. It’s been thrilling to see how everything unfolded in this thread, OP caught bbigtart and ended up being caught as a ban evader. Good job Lovesmayfamilis for exposing this alt farm, I wonder if OP was also the one behind the shan85 account and just wanted revenge.

[CryptSafe]

It is unfortunate that all these are happening of lately.  I believe every campaign here has rules to go by and before anyone must apply, he or she must diligently read the rules then apply as appropriate if they deem it fit for their participation.

The user in question violated the Terms and conditions of the campaign. Well, pleading it to be a mistake is what I do not understand but however, the manager has the final say on this matter. What ever decision deems it fit is his resolution.

[rby]

This is interesting, first the accused user exposed another user @Shan85 for double dipping in signature campiagn and now he's being accused of using AI to generate post to earn from signature.

I deleted my positive feedback it's very likely that he's using AI to create these posts 40% is already too high to consider a post using AI it's ironic for someone to catch a cheater when he himself is a cheater, but of course, we like to hear his side of the story.

I remember someone warned both of us, but we still proceeded to hand the positive feedback to the user for bursting scam
I didn't delete my positive feedback, rather I turned it to neutral while being able to capture the AI writing as a reason to change feedback from positive to neutral.

This user bursted an uncommon cheating of a signature swapper who earned from two campaigns simultaneously.
(Positive changed to neutral after accusation of AI posting) (Delete)

Right now I don't know if the manager will give you a second chance in his other campaigns, but I think he is quite professional in how to follow up on your case. The rules have been made, so maybe you are not one of the participants who meet the criteria again in the future.

Royse777 already banned him from participating in all his campaigns until the 31st day of December, 2023.
Then, I also think that his reputation is not totally lost. He is remorseful, if he sincerely repents from using AI to make posts subsequently, his crime would be forgotten and all will be fine.

[SatoPrincess]

This is interesting, first the accused user exposed another user @Shan85 for double dipping in signature campiagn and now he's being accused of using AI to generate post to earn from signature.

I deleted my positive feedback it's very likely that he's using AI to create these posts 40% is already too high to consider a post using AI it's ironic for someone to catch a cheater when he himself is a cheater, but of course, we like to hear his side of the story.

I remember someone warned both of us, but we still proceeded to hand the positive feedback to the user for bursting scam
I didn't delete my positive feedback, rather I turned it to neutral while being able to capture the AI writing as a reason to change feedback from positive to neutral.

This user bursted an uncommon cheating of a signature swapper who earned from two campaigns simultaneously.
(Positive changed to neutral after accusation of AI posting) (Delete)

I also didn’t think it was the best use of the trust system at the time, we are lucky he didn’t take advantage of that positive trust to enter a transaction with members of the forum, that would have been really bad. Just because a person bursts a scam onetime or even a seasoned scam burster, that doesn’t mean they are trustworthy. I really think trust should come as a result of monetary transactions done successfully where the value exceeds $100. Even then, the person can still turn out to be not so clean.

[bbigtart]

But I see most of the people commenting here didn't see when I joined the signature campaign and when I made a post with chatgpt AI.

on this occasion I will straighten it out a bit (but I still admit that what I did was wrong and not justified). the two posts that I use via Chatgpt AI are where I haven't joined any campaign and the other is on May 23, at which time I have already joined the BetterCallRaul.it signature campaign managed by royse777. but less than a week after I registered as a participant there, the BetterCallRaul.it campaign has gone into Pause status so I haven't been paid either. (Of course with my cheating I don't deserve to be paid)

It seems to me that you did not understand the essence of your mistake at all and it's not just about your dishonest attempt to earn $50 from a signature campaign.
Why did you think that it can be a constructive discussion if AI writes posts for you? Did you think that each of us knows how to use ChatGPT and we don't need an intermediary if we want his "opinion"?

I fully understand my mistake. In my previous post, I said that the mistakes I made were embarrassing and unethical. I already realized that friend.

What I mean is from that post, because many have cornered me because so far I have been receiving payments from signatures every week, that's all I want to say. Indeed it was my risk to accept judgment from friends like that because of my own mistakes.

I deleted my positive feedback it's very likely that he's using AI to create these posts 40% is already too high to consider a post using AI it's ironic for someone to catch a cheater when he himself is a cheater, but of course, we like to hear his side of the story.

I remember someone warned both of us, but we still proceeded to hand the positive feedback to the user for bursting scam
I didn't delete my positive feedback, rather I turned it to neutral while being able to capture the AI writing as a reason to change feedback from positive to neutral.

This user bursted an uncommon cheating of a signature swapper who earned from two campaigns simultaneously.
(Positive changed to neutral after accusation of AI posting) (Delete)

Yes, it's okay, I deserve it, I'm also sorry for letting you down. Neutral tags as a reminder for me in the future to be even better.

[John Abraham]

This is interesting, first the accused user exposed another user @Shan85 for double dipping in signature campiagn and now he's being accused of using AI to generate post to earn from signature.

This is irony. This is how the world going on. Someone exposing scammers doesn't mean he is trusted. He can scam someone else. Everyone waits for an opportunity to scam others. This should represent why you shouldn't give positive feedback to a scam buster just because he catches scammers. I have seen LoyceV's guide about the use of the trust system and feedback. I know some of us follow them and most of us don't.

I have seen a lot of users argue about that. Some forum members were actively looking to expose scammers (Which is good). But they intended to get DT inclusion and get some positive feedback from DT. I don't want to mention the name, but I have seen a DT member get more than 15+ Positive feedback just because he expose scammers. Which is not the correct use of feedback (In my opinion).

[jokers10]

This is interesting, first the accused user exposed another user @Shan85 for double dipping in signature campiagn and now he's being accused of using AI to generate post to earn from signature.

This is irony. This is how the world going on. Someone exposing scammers doesn't mean he is trusted. He can scam someone else. Everyone waits for an opportunity to scam others. This should represent why you shouldn't give positive feedback to a scam buster just because he catches scammers. I have seen LoyceV's guide about the use of the trust system and feedback. I know some of us follow them and most of us don't.

I have seen a lot of users argue about that. Some forum members were actively looking to expose scammers (Which is good). But they intended to get DT inclusion and get some positive feedback from DT. I don't want to mention the name, but I have seen a DT member get more than 15+ Positive feedback just because he expose scammers. Which is not the correct use of feedback (In my opinion).

Trust system feedback shows that you suppose that a person can be trusted in trading with. If someone consistently and persistently fights scams for years and not seen in anything bad, I'd say that he can be trusted more than an average person so I suppose a positive review for such person is correct.

Of course if someone just came and started with scum exposing it says nothing, but if it is a standard behavior pattern for him for years we can suppose that it is in his character.

So if the one leaves a positive mark in a trust system for one-time scum exposure it is hardly apropriate usage of a system, but if it is for long term work then I think it is correct. No need to hurry nor to place someone to a trust list nor to leave any kind of review. But being too affraid is also not good, if a review we leave is complete then the one interested can read it and make own conclusions if our reasons were good enough for him for making business with the one on whom we left our review.

This case is about a total newbie and comparing it with someone with 15 positive reviews is IMO not the most right thing.

[rby]

I remember someone warned both of us, but we still proceeded to hand the positive feedback to the user for bursting scam
I didn't delete my positive feedback, rather I turned it to neutral while being able to capture the AI writing as a reason to change feedback from positive to neutral.

This user bursted an uncommon cheating of a signature swapper who earned from two campaigns simultaneously.
(Positive changed to neutral after accusation of AI posting) (Delete)

Yes, it's okay, I deserve it, I'm also sorry for letting you down. Neutral tags as a reminder for me in the future to be even better.

It's fine, I have forgiven you. You are remorseful and I believe you must have learnt from your mistake, as you have already accepted the consequences of your crime. Good enough no one was scammed and you weren't banned as the moderators had chosen to be adamant in treating AI posting like plagiarism.

I also didn’t think it was the best use of the trust system at the time, we are lucky he didn’t take advantage of that positive trust to enter a transaction with members of the forum, that would have been really bad.

This is irony. This is how the world going on. Someone exposing scammers doesn't mean he is trusted. He can scam someone else. Everyone waits for an opportunity to scam others. This should represent why you shouldn't give positive feedback to a scam buster just because he catches scammers.

No hard feelings and no fatal crime in as much as the reason for the feedback is given.
I mean, if had a successful trade with Bob, the feedback will look somehow like this Traded by bitcoin to fiat, and he trusted me to send first,  the transaction was worth $2,000
This type of feedback is different from Alice who is a scam buster may have He is an active scam buster the forum, I trust him.

There is no guarantee that Bob will not scam and Alice will. Besides, anyone wanting to trade bitcoin to fiat will likely transact with Bob and not Alice.
The trust system is not complicated as we try to explain and use it.

[Xiestar]

Here we go again with the double standard. A multiple account cheating on campaign deserves a negative feedback while an AI generated post will walk away with just 1 neutral tag.

Both multiple account and AI generated text rules are both set by campaign manager only.

Multiple account - Post an organic post for quota to qualified payment.

AI generated text - Use of this tool because user is lazy.

This user earned money through lazy tools while multiple account post with effort.


Now this user is already applying on other campaign like nothing happened.  

No hard feelings and no fatal crime in as much as the reason for the feedback is given.
I mean, if had a successful trade with Bob, the feedback will look somehow like this Traded by bitcoin to fiat, and he trusted me to send first,  the transaction was worth $2,000
This type of feedback is different from Alice who is a scam buster may have He is an active scam buster the forum, I trust him.

There is no guarantee that Bob will not scam and Alice will. Besides, anyone wanting to trade bitcoin to fiat will likely transact with Bob and not Alice.
The trust system is not complicated as we try to explain and use it.

Scam buster what? If his recent action on busting campaign cheating is scam therefore he is scammer too because he cheat on campaigns.

This analogy means we should not give red trust on spammer and multi account cheater because they didn't stole money.

[nutildah]

Here we go again with the double standard. A multiple account cheating on campaign deserves a negative feedback while an AI generated post will walk away with just 1 neutral tag.

This is because AI posting is not worthy of a red tag in and of itself. Its spam and possibly plagiarism. So if anything the offending posts should be deleted as spam. If the user makes a heavy habit of it they could potentially be banned as a spammer. But in the meantime spammers should only be neutral tagged at most, and only the more egregious ones at that.

[LoyceV]

Here we go again with the double standard. A multiple account cheating on campaign deserves a negative feedback while an AI generated post will walk away with just 1 neutral tag.

If you believe someone deserves negative feedback: do it! Don't talk about double standards while you expect others to do the dirty work.

[Apocollapse]

If you believe someone deserves negative feedback: do it! Don't talk about double standards while you expect others to do the dirty work.

The thing is, his feedback is almost useless and has no chance to ruin someone's reputation because he's not a DT member.

Sure you can say don't need to become a DT member to leave an appropriate feedback, there's might a DT1 user would include him on the trust list. But he already received a neutral feedback from other DT user, based on the explanation it seems his chance become a DT member is really small because other people would be skeptic and think he could ruin the DT system due to suspected as an alt account.

[jokers10]

If you believe someone deserves negative feedback: do it! Don't talk about double standards while you expect others to do the dirty work.

The thing is, his feedback is almost useless and has no chance to ruin someone's reputation because he's not a DT member.

Sure you can say don't need to become a DT member to leave an appropriate feedback, there's might a DT1 user would include him on the trust list. But he already received a neutral feedback from other DT user, based on the explanation it seems his chance become a DT member is really small because other people would be skeptic and think he could ruin the DT system due to suspected as an alt account.

Everyone has a mind of his own. Being in DT means others consider your reviews in trust system correct and appropriate, it doesn't mean you have to make a conclusion in every possible case. Not being in DT doesn't mean your reviews will not be taken in account. If I'm interested to know more about someone I will look through all reviews including untrusted ones.

So if you think that someone should be tagged you should do it yourself even if you are not in DT. If your review will be correct and appropriate someone else can decide to support you and leave the same tag, some can decide that you deserve to be trusted despite your tags. But if you don't do anything yourself but demand acting from others it's not the best way.

[Apocollapse]

Everyone has a mind of his own. Being in DT means others consider your reviews in trust system correct and appropriate, it doesn't mean you have to make a conclusion in every possible case. Not being in DT doesn't mean your reviews will not be taken in account. If I'm interested to know more about someone I will look through all reviews including untrusted ones.

So if you think that someone should be tagged you should do it yourself even if you are not in DT. If your review will be correct and appropriate someone else can decide to support you and leave the same tag, some can decide that you deserve to be trusted despite your tags. But if you don't do anything yourself but demand acting from others it's not the best way.

Others consider you're leaving an appropriate feedback when the case is definitely deserve 100% negative feedback e.g. scam someone or cheating. In this thread the case is about using AI in signature campaign, it's still subjective since there's no rule about plagiarism broke this forum rule or theymos said using AI is deserve to get negative feedback. This will make people think tagging negative feedback due to AI usage is harsh and if you're a newbie or not reputable user, you have a high chance to get distrusted.

While the respected or high account user did that, no one will talk about it and shut their mouth. It's true they already contributed a lot and almost of his feedbacks are correct, but a tiny mistake is still wrong. Why not distrust them? they have a lot appropriate feedbacks, fear of getting distrusted by them and possible of creating new drama.

[jokers10]

Others consider you're leaving an appropriate feedback when the case is definitely deserve 100% negative feedback e.g. scam someone or cheating. In this thread the case is about using AI in signature campaign, it's still subjective since there's no rule about plagiarism broke this forum rule or theymos said using AI is deserve to get negative feedback. This will make people think tagging negative feedback due to AI usage is harsh and if you're a newbie or not reputable user, you have a high chance to get distrusted.

While the respected or high account user did that, no one will talk about it and shut their mouth. It's true they already contributed a lot and almost of his feedbacks are correct, but a tiny mistake is still wrong. Why not distrust them? they have a lot appropriate feedbacks, fear of getting distrusted by them and possible of creating new drama.

But if no one decided to do so themselves yet it doesn't mean someone should insist. If the one from DT will do many doubtful things he can be distrusted as well, you can see there are several from DT1 with a negative trust number. So everyone should do the things he is sure in. May be DT members can do something on the very boundaries of a consensus, but it should be their own decision.

[LoyceV]

If you believe someone deserves negative feedback: do it! Don't talk about double standards while you expect others to do the dirty work.

The thing is, his feedback is almost useless and has no chance to ruin someone's reputation because he's not a DT member.

Users should only be added on others' Trust lists if they leave accurate feedback. It's more or less decentralized, so as many users as possible should use it.

Sure you can say don't need to become a DT member to leave an appropriate feedback, there's might a DT1 user would include him on the trust list. But he already received a neutral feedback from other DT user, based on the explanation it seems his chance become a DT member is really small because other people would be skeptic and think he could ruin the DT system due to suspected as an alt account.

If that's the case, he can leave feedback from his other account.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I just reported a shitposter to Loyse777 who was in one of his capmpaigns, as I'd noticed one of his posts was generic garbage.  When I checked the member's post history I saw that such posts were a pattern of his--and now I'm kind of wondering whether it could have been some kind of AI writing them.

For years on this forum members have been writing very impersonal, general posts about whatever the subject of a thread is about, almost as if the thread title is an exam question to be answered in 125 characters or so.  That's always been the shitposters' MO since they basically don't care about what they're writing and probably don't have any personal anecdotes to share anyway.  But man, now that AI-generated writing has arrived it's pretty damn scary what could happen.

[LoyceV]

Loyse777

If you keep this up, I'm going to have to come up with a nickname for you too

[examplens]

For years on this forum members have been writing very impersonal, general posts about whatever the subject of a thread is about, almost as if the thread title is an exam question to be answered in 125 characters or so.  That's always been the shitposters' MO since they basically don't care about what they're writing and probably don't have any personal anecdotes to share anyway.  But man, now that AI-generated writing has arrived it's pretty damn scary what could happen.

I am sure that writing posts on the forum with the help of artificial text generators has been established for a long time.
Even before the appearance and popularization of ChatGPT, which started the AI avalanche, there were content generators. Now they are just much more sophisticated, plus there are free versions available to everyone.

From the point of view of how to recognize AI-generated content, nutildah presented an interesting test and only confirmed that AI cannot confirm with certainty whether the text was written by a human or a machine.
I have a little experience in this topic, I came to the conclusion that AI-generated content is enough small changes by humans to be unrecognizable to AI content detectors.

Loyse777

This is some kind of hybrid of LoyceV&Royse777

[AB de Royse777]

Loyse777

If you keep this up, I'm going to have to come up with a nickname for you too

Loyse777

This is some kind of hybrid of LoyceV&Royse777

TSC is up to something. I had to check the keyboard layout and there are no way it can be a typo. L falls under one of the right finger and R falls under one of the left finger. :-)

[Xiestar]

If you believe someone deserves negative feedback: do it! Don't talk about double standards while you expect others to do the dirty work.

The thing is, his feedback is almost useless and has no chance to ruin someone's reputation because he's not a DT member.

Sure you can say don't need to become a DT member to leave an appropriate feedback, there's might a DT1 user would include him on the trust list. But he already received a neutral feedback from other DT user, based on the explanation it seems his chance become a DT member is really small because other people would be skeptic and think he could ruin the DT system due to suspected as an alt account.

Facts, I already have 1 neutral feedback due to this DT personal view towards my action. Weak has no voice here. As if my feedback will matter here.

The only reason why this user is not -ve tagged is because of his previous action towards other user abusing the campaign that is now bombarded by negative tag by breaking campaign rules only. What if this user got busted first on doing this stuff? I’m sure he will suffer same treatment.

This is the double standard I’m talking on my post. This issue is same cheating but why this user get away with soft neutral tag?

If that's the case, he can leave feedback from his other account.

I’m not DT either on my main account. But why you can’t? This is a clear cheating. Maybe because this user is on your soft side?

[LoyceV]

If that's the case, he can leave feedback from his other account.

I’m not DT either on my main account.

That's irrelevant. If everyone thought that way, nobody would ever reach DT.

But why you can’t?

There's no point in adding multiple neutral tags.

This is a clear cheating.

Cheating deserves a negative tag. Chatbot plagiarism deserves a ban. Pick one

Maybe because this user is on your soft side?

I don't have a soft side. If you'd know anything about me, you'd know I don't hand out feedback as if it's candy.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't have any experience with that tool so I don't know how accurate it is, hence I've given that account only a neutral tag.
This should draw enough attention and I expect campaign managers will check this out.

Oh, man....this dude PMed me for a post history review, and I'm so glad I thought to check his trust page first.  I don't know why I did, because usually I don't even bother, but I want to thank you and the other members who tagged him.

I've got ~DT in my trust list, so I wouldn't even have gotten a clear warning if someone on DT had given him a negative.  *Whew*  I think I just saved myself (with all y'all's help, of course) from a poopload of regret, something I was just conversing with JollyGood about.  From now on I think I'm going to make it a habit to check members' trust pages if they're requesting a review from me for the first time. 

As I've said before, the capability of an AI-thingamajig generating posts that can pass as genuinely good ones is effing scary.  We all know that if there's a way to earn more money on bitcointalk by cheating in a particular way, somebody is going to do it--and if it's successful, more and more people are going to follow suit.  It blows my mind that technology has come to this.