AI Spam Report Reference Thread

[Lillominato89]

I responded to this post last week and it caught my eye. It’s uncommon to see a legendary account using AI to generate posts, I would like to hear his response. So far I haven’t seen any posts in his account history that is AI written. The post I quoted looks human written but the source link clearly shows that it’s gotten from ChatGPT. I want to know, are cases like this given a pass?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/35383362/man-utd-transfer-news-live-hojlund-rashford-mbeumo-updates/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Apparently some big Italian clubs are interested in Manchester United player Hojlund. Currently Inter are in the lead, and also have the player's appreciation but the English club would like a direct transfer, Inter instead opts for a loan with obligation to buy! As a third striker he would be ideal for Inter, even if honestly I would never spend 45 million for a reserve
What are your opinions?

Look, I didn't use any artificial intelligence to write the post, I simply asked chatgpt to find me an article in English and I only inserted the link. Is it forbidden? If yes I apologize and it will not be done by me again
This is my answer to your question

[Ultegra134]

in my experience it's not a decent scanner, it has a lot of false negatives, so I would just avoid using it
gptzero is the one that has given me the most satisfaction at the moment, exactly the best even if you can't use it much, since it requires payment

but couldn't theymos buy it and use the API to check every post inserted? is bad idea?

It's not the best scanner but not the worst either. Usually, if a post is AI written it'll detect it with no issues, but may flag a few posts as false positives from time to time. It's free and with unlimited scans, but as everyone else also suggested, it's to be used in combination with the other tools.

I responded to this post last week and it caught my eye. It’s uncommon to see a legendary account using AI to generate posts, I would like to hear his response. So far I haven’t seen any posts in his account history that is AI written. The post I quoted looks human written but the source link clearly shows that it’s gotten from ChatGPT. I want to know, are cases like this given a pass?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/35383362/man-utd-transfer-news-live-hojlund-rashford-mbeumo-updates/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Apparently some big Italian clubs are interested in Manchester United player Hojlund. Currently Inter are in the lead, and also have the player's appreciation but the English club would like a direct transfer, Inter instead opts for a loan with obligation to buy! As a third striker he would be ideal for Inter, even if honestly I would never spend 45 million for a reserve
What are your opinions?

From my understanding, the user you quoted is taking ideas on what to write from ChatGPT, or simply sourcing links through it. I didn't see a repeated pattern from his previous posts, so I don't believe it's such a big deal.

[jokers10]

Another one newbie who decided to start with AI posting, favaro.

When your child talks about Bitcoin, it’s important not to assume that everything about it is positive. Cryptocurrency is a powerful and innovative technology, but it also comes with risks and challenges that can be difficult to understand, especially for younger people. Children may hear about Bitcoin through social media, friends, or online videos, some of which may be misleading or promote risky behaviors like gambling, scams, or “get-rich-quick” schemes. Without proper guidance, they might be exposed to the negative side of crypto rather than its educational and financial benefits.

As parents or guardians, it’s essential to engage in open, non-judgmental conversations about Bitcoin. Ask your child what they know and where they learned about it, and use the opportunity to teach them the basics of blockchain, responsible investing, and online safety. Setting boundaries based on their age and maturity is important, but so is walking alongside them in this digital journey. Just as we teach children how to handle money and navigate the real world safely, we must also help them understand and navigate the world of digital assets responsibly. Ignorance, not Bitcoin itself, poses the greatest risk.

copyleaks AI Content Found 100%
zerogpt 100% AI GPT
sapling.ai Fake: 100.0%

There’s been increasing speculation about governments becoming more involved in Bitcoin mining, either by supporting private miners or setting up state-run operations.

If nation-states begin mining Bitcoin on a large scale, would it help the network become more secure and accepted globally, or would it lead to centralization, censorship, and control?

Could we see mining wars in the future, where countries compete for hash power just like they do for oil or nuclear weapons?

I’d love to hear different perspectives:
Would you trust a Bitcoin block validated by a government miner?
Could this destroy Bitcoin’s neutrality?
Or would it finally give Bitcoin the status of a real-world asset class?
Let's discuss

copyleaks AI Content Found 100%
zerogpt 53.8% AI GPT
sapling.ai Fake: 100.0%

I have  been studying different altcoin projects lately and noticed that while many gain attention due to hype, only a few seem to offer real-world utility. Projects like Chainlink, Solana, and even newer ones like Toncoin are building infrastructure with actual use cases.
However, with so many tokens flooding the market, it's becoming difficult to separate hype from genuine value.
I’d love to hear from experienced holders and developers in this space
What key indicators do you look for when deciding whether an altcoin project has long-term potential?
And which altcoins (aside from the usual Bitcoin and Ethereum) do you truly believe can survive the next five years based on utility and development strength?

copyleaks AI Content Found 100%
zerogpt 64.36% AI GPT
sapling.ai Fake: 100.0%

I've been trying to understand Bitcoin’s role in today’s economy. Many people describe it as a hedge against inflation, but with its frequent price fluctuations, I sometimes wonder how reliable that claim is.
Now that interest rates are rising globally and liquidity is tightening, is Bitcoin still considered a dependable store of value, or is it more of a high-risk asset?
I’d really appreciate hearing from long-term holders  how do you currently view Bitcoin in terms of financial stability?

copyleaks AI Content Found 100%
zerogpt 100% AI GPT
sapling.ai Fake: 100.0%

[Alone055]

but couldn't theymos buy it and use the API to check every post inserted? is bad idea?

I don't think he would do that, especially since the forum has no official rule against AI-generated content for now, just like there is none for merit abuse. These issues and some others, such as account sales and scams, are handled by the DT, and not the administration.

[babo]

but couldn't theymos buy it and use the API to check every post inserted? is bad idea?

I don't think he would do that, especially since the forum has no official rule against AI-generated content for now, just like there is none for merit abuse. These issues and some others, such as account sales and scams, are handled by the DT, and not the administration.

I don't force anyone as you well know and perhaps you have had the chance to know me I am a peaceful person
the aim was to lend a hand with a sensible proposal nothing more

the fact that doing something like this from dt is a waste of money, the bees of these services cost and they also cost a lot

[nutildah]

Another day, another newbie, creating nonsense AI topics.

Posts reported.

User: Mr forfee

This guy is still at it, but now he is adding some text to preface the AI slop to make it look "less AI". These types of accounts should be nuked IMO. They are just creating distractions and not really interested in learning anything, or taking part in a conversation. Frankly I don't understand what their goal is.

NFTs are commonly connected to platforms like Ethereum or occasionally Solana. But now they've also made their way onto several other blockchain networks, including Bitcoin. Am an NFT lover, so its awesome to see btc dive into The world of NFT

It may come as a very big surprise, but the Bitcoin network has quickly emerged as a notable platform for digital collectible creators and enthusiasts. While its method of handling NFTs differs from the more straightforward systems seen on other blockchains, Bitcoin offers strong benefits in security, durability, and the ability to scale over time.

Bitcoin Ordinals use a novel system that assigns a unique identifier to every satoshi on the network. This method numbers each sat in the sequence it was mined, enabling precise tracking and authentication. The assigned number remains constant, even if the sat is transferred between wallets.

Copyleaks: 100% AI-generated
Sapling: 100% Fake
GPTZero: 94% AI generated

[Ultegra134]

User: Mr forfee

This guy is still at it, but now he is adding some text to preface the AI slop to make it look "less AI". These types of accounts should be nuked IMO. They are just creating distractions and not really interested in learning anything, or taking part in a conversation. Frankly I don't understand what their goal is.

Annnd he's gone. He's now nuked after your last report, good job! I haven't understood one thing, why are some newbie accounts nuked, and some others aren't? What determines if a user is nuked? Is it so that the user has created multiple threads, with a handful of replies on each of them and the mods prefer not to delete the entire thread so the other users do not lose their post count, or is it something completely different? On the one hand, it might be best to neutral tag such accounts in case they aren't nuked, so we'll always know they've been reported in the past.

[SatoPrincess]

I responded to this post last week and it caught my eye. It’s uncommon to see a legendary account using AI to generate posts, I would like to hear his response. So far I haven’t seen any posts in his account history that is AI written. The post I quoted looks human written but the source link clearly shows that it’s gotten from ChatGPT. I want to know, are cases like this given a pass?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/35383362/man-utd-transfer-news-live-hojlund-rashford-mbeumo-updates/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Apparently some big Italian clubs are interested in Manchester United player Hojlund. Currently Inter are in the lead, and also have the player's appreciation but the English club would like a direct transfer, Inter instead opts for a loan with obligation to buy! As a third striker he would be ideal for Inter, even if honestly I would never spend 45 million for a reserve
What are your opinions?

Look, I didn't use any artificial intelligence to write the post, I simply asked chatgpt to find me an article in English and I only inserted the link. Is it forbidden? If yes I apologize and it will not be done by me again
This is my answer to your question

I know you didn’t you use AI to write the post. Like I said in my earlier post, it’s quite obvious that the post was human written.

[babo]

I currently use AI to get "pages" from websites summarized
when I go to read a news from my mobile, my blood boils

I enter the site, first full screen banner, wait 4-5 seconds.. I close the banner
after every 4 sentences, 1 huge banner

when I'm at the end, another mega banner or the newsletter subscription form appears

ENOUGH, you're breaking my balls

I take the link, put it on deepseek and say, give me a summary.. and he does it
I avoid banners that have now become absurd

[_act_]

This is another AI user

Web3 Wallet Payment Tutorial with Mypal

On Quillbot: 100% AI
Sapling AI Detector: 100% fake
Zerogpt: 94.5% AI GPT*
GPTZero: We are highly confident this text was originally human written and polished by AI

Does this mean the user write all by himself and use AI to fix some grammar errors?

[Lillominato89]

I responded to this post last week and it caught my eye. It’s uncommon to see a legendary account using AI to generate posts, I would like to hear his response. So far I haven’t seen any posts in his account history that is AI written. The post I quoted looks human written but the source link clearly shows that it’s gotten from ChatGPT. I want to know, are cases like this given a pass?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/35383362/man-utd-transfer-news-live-hojlund-rashford-mbeumo-updates/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Apparently some big Italian clubs are interested in Manchester United player Hojlund. Currently Inter are in the lead, and also have the player's appreciation but the English club would like a direct transfer, Inter instead opts for a loan with obligation to buy! As a third striker he would be ideal for Inter, even if honestly I would never spend 45 million for a reserve
What are your opinions?

Look, I didn't use any artificial intelligence to write the post, I simply asked chatgpt to find me an article in English and I only inserted the link. Is it forbidden? If yes I apologize and it will not be done by me again
This is my answer to your question

I know you didn’t you use AI to write the post. Like I said in my earlier post, it’s quite obvious that the post was human written.

Yes I had read and understood your post well, but you wanted to know what I would reply and I gave you my reasons. No controversy mate, I then asked if using links from chatgpt or any other AI was forbidden or not, but I received no reply from anyone

[_act_]

Yes I had read and understood your post well, but you wanted to know what I would reply and I gave you my reasons. No controversy mate, I then asked if using links from chatgpt or any other AI was forbidden or not, but I received no reply from anyone

You used AI to get a link but all what you posted there like this is written by you and not AI. There is no tool that can even know that you get the link through AI. There is nothing wrong in doing something like this.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Yes I had read and understood your post well, but you wanted to know what I would reply and I gave you my reasons. No controversy mate, I then asked if using links from chatgpt or any other AI was forbidden or not, but I received no reply from anyone

You used AI to get a link but all what you posted there like this is written by you and not AI. There is no tool that can even know that you get the link through AI. There is nothing wrong in doing something like this.

I find it pathetic that we still have to be discussing this. I'm not saying this for you, Lillominato89, but it should simply be obvious that if you use ChatGPT or some AI to do internet searches, which is becoming more and more common, and post the link, no one should think there is any problem about it.

At the time I proposed some rules for good use of AI in the forum, because until then all the discussion was focused on the opposite point of view: how to curb the use of AI in the forum.

Acceptable uses of AI in the forum (unofficial)

To end up putting item 6 on that list I previously had a heated discussion that concluded with me reporting my own post.

From then on no one should doubt that using AI to do searches, citing the source, is a legitimate use of AI in the forum.

[babo]

The technology is still very young and so we are learning how to use it
for example, the company that gives me internet called me complaining that I didn't pay for a month's connection

then I took a screenshot of the invoice emails, I extracted the invoice number
then I took a screenshot of the transfers made to the company.. I extracted the payment date and invoice number

then I cross-referenced the data and found the unpaid invoice, I sent, or rather, I had the email written to send to customer care

4 minutes

Without it I would have spent at least 40 minutes doing all this and checking it a couple of times

[Lillominato89]

Yes I had read and understood your post well, but you wanted to know what I would reply and I gave you my reasons. No controversy mate, I then asked if using links from chatgpt or any other AI was forbidden or not, but I received no reply from anyone

You used AI to get a link but all what you posted there like this is written by you and not AI. There is no tool that can even know that you get the link through AI. There is nothing wrong in doing something like this.

I find it pathetic that we still have to be discussing this. I'm not saying this for you, Lillominato89, but it should simply be obvious that if you use ChatGPT or some AI to do internet searches, which is becoming more and more common, and post the link, no one should think there is any problem about it.

At the time I proposed some rules for good use of AI in the forum, because until then all the discussion was focused on the opposite point of view: how to curb the use of AI in the forum.

Acceptable uses of AI in the forum (unofficial)

To end up putting item 6 on that list I previously had a heated discussion that concluded with me reporting my own post.

From then on no one should doubt that using AI to do searches, citing the source, is a legitimate use of AI in the forum.

I totally agree with you, using an AI and quoting it in your posts should be considered fair use!
The situation that bothers me is that I found myself in this discussion because the source (chatgpt) was cited on the link to the newspaper article. I use AI, but for my own purposes and not to make it write posts for me. It should be noted that I write very badly in English, it is not my native language unfortunately.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I totally agree with you, using an AI and quoting it in your posts should be considered fair use!
The situation that bothers me is that I found myself in this discussion because the source (chatgpt) was cited on the link to the newspaper article. I use AI, but for my own purposes and not to make it write posts for me. It should be noted that I write very badly in English, it is not my native language unfortunately.

But do you use AI to translate or translators like deepl.com? When I wrote that thread about acceptable uses, one that I proposed was to use AI to translate because at that time I tested and what was translated with AI did not appear as AI generated in the detectors. But I have seen people claim that they translate with AI and that is why the analysis in some of their posts appears as AI generated when they are not and recently, in one post of mine, in two detectors it appeared as human generated but in the other as 100% AI generated (when it had been simply translated).

Therefore, at least for the moment, it is better to use translators like deepl.com, but I believe that in the future they will integrate AI as well (they already have the option of AI-powered edits), which will generate controversy in the forum if the detectors confuse simply translated text with AI-generated text.

[Lillominato89]

I totally agree with you, using an AI and quoting it in your posts should be considered fair use!
The situation that bothers me is that I found myself in this discussion because the source (chatgpt) was cited on the link to the newspaper article. I use AI, but for my own purposes and not to make it write posts for me. It should be noted that I write very badly in English, it is not my native language unfortunately.

But do you use AI to translate or translators like deepl.com? When I wrote that thread about acceptable uses, one that I proposed was to use AI to translate because at that time I tested and what was translated with AI did not appear as AI generated in the detectors. But I have seen people claim that they translate with AI and that is why the analysis in some of their posts appears as AI generated when they are not and recently, in one post of mine, in two detectors it appeared as human generated but in the other as 100% AI generated (when it had been simply translated).

Therefore, at least for the moment, it is better to use translators like deepl.com, but I believe that in the future they will integrate AI as well (they already have the option of AI-powered edits), which will generate controversy in the forum if the detectors confuse simply translated text with AI-generated text.

I know that if a post is translated by an AI, the detectors detect it as 100% written by an AI, the reason is simple, the AI does not only translate but adds something more, an extra sentence. I did some tests on this and when I sent the text to be translated the AI asked me if I want the tone of the translation to be friendly, informal or euphoric or like bar chatter. This really suggests that the text we send is first modified and then translated.
Anyway, for translations I use both deepl from desktop and the translator integrated on gboard from android which I find useful because it instantly translates what I write from my language into English

[Dark.Look]

Hello everyone I'm backed. 

User: Wanderingaran

If the creator explicitly designs a challenge where participants are invited to solve a cryptographic puzzle (e.g., through mathematical patterns, encryption, or deliberate clues), it is generally considered a legal competition. The owner consents to the transfer of funds upon successful decryption.

Example: Bitcoin "brain wallets" with passphrases, CTF (Capture The Flag) challenges.

If the "puzzle" is merely a disguised brute-force attack (e.g., trying random private keys until one works), this could be seen as unauthorized access to a financial instrument. Since Bitcoin private keys are mathematically derived (not "created" in a traditional sense), brute-forcing them without consent may violate: Computer Fraud and Abuse Laws (e.g., CFAA in the U.S.) if interpreted as unauthorized access.Theft or Conversion Laws if funds are taken without the owner’s explicit permission.

The creator claims there is "no pattern," meaning it’s essentially a brute-force challenge. While they frame it as a "measuring instrument," the act of distributing funds this way could be seen as unauthorized access to a financial instrument.

If participants invest resources (electricity, hardware) for a chance to win, it might violate gambling laws in some jurisdictions.

If the creator did not legally relinquish ownership (e.g., via a smart contract or binding terms), brute-forcing the key might still be considered theft.

If the owner did not clearly relinquish ownership (e.g., by publishing a signed transaction or legal agreement), taking funds may be unlawful.

Intent: If the puzzle is structured as a brute-force attack rather than a solvable riddle, it could be argued that the creator is inducing illegal activity.

Jurisdiction: Laws vary by country. Some may view this as a harmless game, while others could treat it as theft or hacking.

Even if legal, brute-forcing random keys could harm innocent holders (e.g., if a solver accidentally cracks a key unrelated to the puzzle).

The Bitcoin community generally frowns upon non-consensual key cracking, as it undermines trust in cryptographic security.

The Bitcoin Puzzle is a controversial edge case. While the creator presents it as a "game," brute-forcing keys without explicit consent could be legally risky. If challenged in court, a judge might rule that:

The creator’s invitation does not override property rights.

Solvers who take funds without unambiguous permission could be liable for theft.

For absolute legality, puzzles should involve provable consent (e.g., signed messages, smart contracts) rather than raw brute-force incentives.

copyleaks: 100% AI Content Found
originality: 85%
quillbot: 77%
sapling: 99.7%

A cryptographically signed message from a Bitcoin address is the strongest possible proof . Courts and investigators increasingly recognize such signatures as valid evidence (similar to a digital notarization). A forum post alone carries no weight without cryptographic verification.  If the coins are genuinely "lost," courts may view brute-forcing as akin to finding abandoned property. However, if an owner emerges with proof, the brute-forcer could face liability for theft or unjust enrichment. If someone falsely claims ownership without cryptographic proof, they could face civil fraud claims or criminal charges (e.g., filing a false police report).
Courts treat BTC like money or assets, not "abandoned treasure." The risks far outweigh the fantasy rewards.

gptzero: 100% mixed
stealthwriter: 100%
copyleaks: 100% AI Content Found
sapling: 98.4%
originality: 100%

I have thought about it. And as someone who works in cybercrime investigations, I can tell you the law isn’t as binary as "the creator said it’s okay, so it’s legal." The law is written in black and white, but the words say "authorization," not "vibes." Unless the creator formalized this as a binding offer (a smart contract with explicit terms), you’re relying on not getting caught, not legal immunity.

Brute-forcing a key isn’t a recognized legal mechanism.

The creator’s intent might be clear to you, but courts need evidence of a valid contract or gift. If the private key is hidden within a puzzle or image (steganography, riddles, or cryptographic clues) and publicly posted (like GSMG.IO puzzle) by the owner, that’s fundamentally different from brute-forcing under the law.
Puzzle-solving = The owner deliberately encodes the key and invites solvers to extract it. This is closer to a unilateral contract ("Solve this, claim the prize").

If a company posts a puzzle on its website, that’s strong evidence of consent. Courts recognize "invited access". Brute-forcing lacks this clarity. Even weak keys don’t prove the owner authorized all methods of access.

originality: 78%
sapling: 100%
stealthwriter: 92%
copyleaks: 100% AI Content Found

I couldn't check other posts of this user because there is not enough words, but It seems these are also AI generated:

Count me in! Can’t wait to split those serious winnings with the ultra-serious, ultra-dedicated team. Teamwork makes the dream work!

stealthwriter: 100%

[igebotz]

Annnd he's gone. He's now nuked after your last report, good job! I haven't understood one thing, why are some newbie accounts nuked, and some others aren't? What determines if a user is nuked? Is it so that the user has created multiple threads, with a handful of replies on each of them and the mods prefer not to delete the entire thread so the other users do not lose their post count, or is it something completely different? On the one hand, it might be best to neutral tag such accounts in case they aren't nuked, so we'll always know they've been reported in the past.

Cases are handled on a case by case basis as there is no official rule against the use of AI yet ( no general punishment); someone with a mixed post history may be excused/given a second chance, but only at the discretion of the mod who handled the case. Totally mod decision in short.

Neutral tag could also serve a good purpose and also as a strong message to Sig managers.

Hello everyone I'm backed. 

Welcome back, Dark.Look  where did you goto again?

[Ultegra134]

Cases are handled on a case by case basis as there is no official rule against the use of AI yet ( no general punishment); someone with a mixed post history may be excused/given a second chance, but only at the discretion of the mod who handled the case. Totally mod decision in short.

Neutral tag could also serve a good purpose and also as a strong message to Sig managers.

Yeah I've figured it as well. The more posts a user has, and the more threads they've opened seems to matter on whether they'll be nuked or not, it's something I've noticed myself. For this reason, I've decided that it's best to leave a neutral tag in case the account doesn't get nuked, just like  in @nutildah's case, where I had reported the user months ago, but he still continued to spam the forum with AI gibberish, and I don't recall leaving a neutral tag because I was expecting that he'd simply be nuked. Thankfully, the account got nuked the second time.