AI Spam Report Reference Thread

[adam.sandler]

Another Legendary User = SUPERSAIAN

I have confirmed this, what I see about this is that he used AI to make some corrections, but later he may think of using AI to construct some posts also. He truly use AI to write some posts is what that I see and he is worth to be given a neutral tag. Let me wait and see what Nutildah will post or mean about this first before making my conclusion. It is so disappointing that legendary members are now making the work easy for themselves to make some posts with the help of AI. It is actually very bad.

What I noticed is that with high-level accounts, there is almost no strictness. Maybe I misunderstood.
If new accounts do this, it can be said that their mistake is sometimes and rarely due to their lack of knowledge of the rules, but old accounts...!
I don't mean that I am a fan of strict treatment, no. But sometimes we have seen them easily repeat this.

User: CoinCrafter

He or She just created an account today.

[nutildah]

User: CoinCrafter

Thank you for your submission. But I'm just curious: did you report these posts to the moderators? They are obviously AI-generated posts but have not been deleted. I reported these posts and 4 additional ones they wrote afterward. They should be nuked any time now...

What I noticed is that with high-level accounts, there is almost no strictness. Maybe I misunderstood.
If new accounts do this, it can be said that their mistake is sometimes and rarely due to their lack of knowledge of the rules, but old accounts...!
I don't mean that I am a fan of strict treatment, no. But sometimes we have seen them easily repeat this.

It makes sense to give older accounts a little more leeway, IMO. This applies not just to AI shitposting but to all potential forum fouls.

Sometimes this leeway is taken advantage of. But a new account using AI to shitpost risks nothing as it has no reputation whereas older accounts that do this take that risk, which is why they either complain a lot when caught or else just don't do it.

[Free Market Capitalist]

It makes sense to give older accounts a little more leeway, IMO. This applies not just to AI shitposting but to all potential forum fouls.

Not everyone feels the same way, as far as we can see:

... I don't like to give "special treatment" after I gave many low-ranking chatbot spammers a neutral tag. Especially established members should know better.

[adam.sandler]

User : N9_Ninja

Unfortunately, the rest of this user's posts are in the same situation, but I'll report a few of her/his posts here as examples.
The votes given to her/him are also significant.

1.

Hey, I totally feel this energy! It's hard not to get hyped when you think about Bitcoin's potential, especially after seeing how far it's come.

That idea of just consistently 'stacking sats' whenever you can, dollar-cost averaging in – it really does make sense for the long game. And yeah, the way fiat currencies are going, it definitely makes you think about having something outside of that system.

Calling future millionaires and billionaires 'Bitcoin investors' is a bold statement, but honestly, looking back at how early adopters did, it's not impossible to imagine. It's easy to regret not buying more 'back then,' but as you said, the best time is always now.

For those of you who've been around for a while, what's been your biggest lesson or piece of advice for someone just starting their Bitcoin journey with this mindset?

gptzero : 100%
copyleaks: 100%
originality : 100%
stealthwriter : 100%


2.

Hey everyone,

So, the last Bitcoin halving is well behind us now. We had that typical pre-halving hype, then a bit of a lull/correction that some called the 'halving dump.' But now that the dust has settled, what are your thoughts on where BTC is headed?

Are we in the 'accumulation zone' before the real bull run kicks in later this year, like after previous halvings? Or is this cycle different because of all the new ETF money and macro stuff? Miners are still adjusting, but it feels like the supply shock should start hitting harder soon.

Curious to hear what the community thinks. Are you stacking sats, trading, or just chilling?

gptzero : 100%
copyleaks: 100%
originality : 100%
stealthwriter : 88%


3.

Whoa, just saw this pop up – $8.6 BILLION of BTC moving after 14 years is absolutely insane! That's proper, old-school Bitcoin treasure right there.

It really makes you wonder who it could be. An incredibly patient early miner? A forgotten hard drive found after all these years? Or maybe an institution that's been accumulating super quietly? Either way, talk about holding through literally everything Bitcoin has seen. That's a true diamond hands move, or just someone who genuinely forgot about it for over a decade!

Regarding the quantum computing bit, honestly, that's a whole different beast. While it's a long-term theoretical threat to current crypto cryptography, this particular move is almost certainly about someone finally accessing their old keys, not some future quantum attack. It's a fascinating thought, but probably unrelated to these specific funds waking up now.

What's your best guess? Is this a whale preparing for something big, or just a legendary hodler finally cashing out (or moving to cold storage)?

gptzero : 100%
copyleaks: 100%
stealthwriter : 100%
originality : 96%


4.

Great point, this is definitely a scenario that keeps me up at night.

The idea of stablecoins effectively turning into de-facto CBDCs through regulatory capture is chillingly plausible. You're right, why build a new digital currency from scratch when you can just co-opt what already has massive adoption? Forcing KYC/AML on issuers and then exerting control over how those 'regulated' stablecoins are used would achieve pretty much the same outcome as a direct CBDC, but perhaps with less public resistance initially.

The implications for financial freedom and privacy are huge. If every transaction can be monitored, frozen, or even programmed by a central authority, it undermines the very ethos of crypto. It shifts the power dynamic significantly.

It makes me wonder if genuinely decentralized, algorithmic stablecoins (even with their past challenges) become even more critical in such a future. They might be the last bastions of truly uncensorable digital money.

Do you think there's any way for regulated stablecoins to exist without eventually becoming tools for central control, or is it an inherent trade-off?

copyleaks: 100%
gptzero : 99%
originality : 99%
stealthwriter : 90%


5.

Great topic!

I totally get the privacy concerns. It's tough to shake the feeling that CBDCs could open the door to unprecedented surveillance if not designed with extreme care. The 'efficiency' argument often feels secondary when you consider the potential for governments to control how and when you spend your money. That's a scary thought.

For me, the biggest threat is definitely the potential for programmability and censorship at a granular level. Imagine a CBDC that expires, or that can't be spent on certain 'undesirable' goods or services. That's not just a privacy issue; it's a fundamental erosion of financial freedom.

How to push back? Education is key, showing people what real decentralized money offers. Also, continuing to build robust, truly private alternatives in the crypto space. If there's enough adoption for decentralized solutions, maybe the CBDC push won't have the teeth some fear.

Are there any CBDC models out there that you guys think could work without completely sacrificing privacy, or is it fundamentally incompatible?

gptzero : 100%
copyleaks: 100%
stealthwriter : 100%
originality : 73%

[SmartBusiness001]

User: CoinCrafter

Thank you for your submission. But I'm just curious: did you report these posts to the moderators? They are obviously AI-generated posts but have not been deleted. I reported these posts and 4 additional ones they wrote afterward. They should be nuked any time now...

Done to report the post mate

[logfiles]

User : N9_Ninja

Unfortunately, the rest of this user's posts are in the same situation, but I'll report a few of her/his posts here as examples.
The votes given to her/him are also significant.

That account is part of the accounts I reported in this thread - 4 accounts that have likely been sold or stolen. Now advertising malicious sites

3 of them we banned, but the other that were not banned woke up recently and started posting shit in a similar fashion in an attempt to advertise the phishing sites. How I wish mods would ban the remaining accounts too under the rule, or ban evasion or advertising phishing sites in their signatures.

[LoyceV]

What's the verdict on this Newbie trying to earn Merit on the tech board?

DonaldCryptoTalk1

First post:

I’m new to the crypto space and eager to learn

(shortened)

Second post:

Bitcoin is often described as “anonymous,” but in reality, it’s only pseudonymous. One of the biggest privacy pitfalls most users fall into is something that seems harmless at first: address reuse.

What is address reuse?
It’s the practice of receiving Bitcoin multiple times to the same wallet address. While it might seem convenient or efficient, it’s one of the easiest ways to compromise your privacy, and potentially the privacy of anyone you interact with.

Here’s why it’s risky:
   •   Every Bitcoin transaction is recorded on a public, permanent ledger.
   •   Reusing an address makes it easy for anyone analyzing the blockchain to link all associated transactions and balances to that address.
   •   It opens the door to tracking your behavior, spending patterns, and financial history.
   •   If you ever use the same address in both private and public contexts, you risk revealing personal or sensitive information without realizing it.

How to avoid address reuse:
   •   Use a wallet that generates a new address every time you receive BTC. Most modern wallets support this automatically, but double-check your settings.
   •   Choose a hierarchical deterministic (HD) wallet, which derives new addresses from a single backup phrase.
   •   Consider using privacy-enhancing tools such as PayJoin, CoinJoin, Samourai Wallet, or Wasabi Wallet for more robust protection.

It’s important to realize that address reuse doesn’t just affect one person.
If someone I send BTC to reuses their address elsewhere, it could reveal details about my transactions too. Privacy leaks can ripple through the network.

Questions for the community:
   •   Do you think most Bitcoin users understand the risks of reusing addresses?
   •   What are the best tools or strategies you use to protect your transaction privacy?
   •   Should wallets make new address generation mandatory by default?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences. Let’s help each other (and especially newcomers) build better privacy habits when using Bitcoin.

[Free Market Capitalist]

What's the verdict on this Newbie trying to earn Merit on the tech board?

DonaldCryptoTalk1

First post:

I’m new to the crypto space and eager to learn

(shortened)

quillbot 100% AI.
GPTzero 91%
copyleaks 100%

Second post:

quillbot 85% AI.
GPTzero 100%
copyleaks 100%

I think it is not necessary to wait until the third post to tag him, it is clear why he has come to the forum.

[ABCbits]

Can anyone check this user Henark? He recently created 2 very long post that contain technical information. I don't even feel like verify it's accuracy it due to it's length.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5549745.msg65580324#msg65580324
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5549222.msg65564368#msg65564368

[Free Market Capitalist]

Can anyone check this user Henark? He recently created 2 very long post that contain technical information. I don't even feel like verify it's accuracy it due to it's length.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5549745.msg65580324#msg65580324
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5549222.msg65564368#msg65564368

Both are generated with AI, at least partially. In this case the doubt I have is that the first post he puts it framed in “quotes”, what happens is that he does not say that the source is an AI.

For the second post:

quillbot 58% AI.
GPTzero 52%
copyleaks 100%

So he seems to have modified what the AI generated.

I'm going to save the tag for now but I think it is worth keeping an eye on him.

[adam.sandler]

User : N9_Ninja

Unfortunately, the rest of this user's posts are in the same situation, but I'll report a few of her/his posts here as examples.
The votes given to her/him are also significant.

That account is part of the accounts I reported in this thread - 4 accounts that have likely been sold or stolen. Now advertising malicious sites

3 of them we banned, but the other that were not banned woke up recently and started posting shit in a similar fashion in an attempt to advertise the phishing sites. How I wish mods would ban the remaining accounts too under the rule, or ban evasion or advertising phishing sites in their signatures.

I hadn't seen this thread. Thanks for telling me.
So, given this situation, I think the administrators should take the necessary measures quickly. We are witnessing multiple violations from the same account.

[SmartBusiness001]

User: HODLAlchemy

In fact, comparing or attempting to measure the total production of Bitcoin (BTC) with metals like gold, silver, or other commodities is not without reason. There is both a philosophical and economic context behind this approach. Precious metals have served as benchmarks of value for thousands of years due to their scarcity, limited production, and global acceptance as a store of value. Bitcoin, with its maximum quantity of 21 million units and its increasingly difficult mining process, is often considered "digital gold." Therefore, when someone suggests comparing the number of BTC in circulation to the production of other metals, it is usually done to assess the scale of scarcity, potential value, and long-term economic impact. While this comparison may seem strange at first, it can provide new insights into how the modern monetary system may be shifting from physical assets to digital ones. I understand your confusion, as comparing something virtual to something tangible seems odd, but that's precisely where the interesting discussion lies.

GPTZero - 99% AI generated
Sapling AI Detector - 100.0 % Fake
Copyleaks AI Content Detector - 100% AI Content
Quillbot - 68% AI-generated
Zerogpt -  84% AI
StealthWriter - 71% AI Detected
Undetectable.ai - 73%AI

The sharp rise in Bitcoin prices since Trump's tariff announcement demonstrates how the financial world is transforming. On the one hand, this is a natural reaction of markets seeking alternatives amid economic uncertainty. On the other, it also reflects a deeper shift: people are beginning to question their reliance on traditional financial systems, which are vulnerable to political volatility and trade conflicts. Bitcoin, with its decentralized nature and limited supply, is beginning to be seen as an asset that offers protection from global uncertainty, similar to the role of gold in the past. As more institutions embrace it, it becomes increasingly clear that we are entering a new era where the definition of "safe haven" is no longer limited to precious metals, but can also take the form of digital codes secured by blockchain networks. This is not simply about price fluctuations, but about how humanity is shifting the paradigm of value in the technological age.

GPTZero - 100% AI generated
Sapling AI Detector - 100.0 % Fake
Copyleaks AI Content Detector - 100% AI Content
Quillbot - 100% AI-generated
Zerogpt -  83% AI
StealthWriter - 67% AI Detected
Undetectable.ai - 89%AI

You raise a very important point regarding Bitcoin's volatility and regulatory uncertainty in various countries. It's true that extreme price fluctuations make Bitcoin an asset that can't be considered completely safe. The risk that governments could suddenly ban or restrict Bitcoin's use is also a real factor that could potentially depress the price. However, on the other hand, Bitcoin offers unique characteristics that are difficult to find in other assets, such as decentralization and programmed scarcity. Therefore, Bitcoin can be seen as an asset with a high risk-reward profile: the potential for large returns, but accompanied by significant uncertainty. The best approach is not to view it as an absolute "safe haven," but as one part of a balanced and carefully monitored portfolio.

GPTZero - 81% AI generated
Sapling AI Detector - 100.0 % Fake
Copyleaks AI Content Detector - 100% AI Content
Quillbot - 68% AI-generated
Zerogpt -  100% AI
StealthWriter - 67% AI Detected

Your view of Bitcoin's potential tenfold increase from its current price is interesting and often voiced, especially when comparing Bitcoin's market capitalization to gold. However, I think it's also important to remember that the crypto market remains fraught with uncertainty and volatility, so predictions like $1 million per BTC should be taken with caution. You're right that only investors who entered early—pre-2017—will achieve maximum returns, and for those saving now with small amounts, the effect will be more toward asset security than significant financial freedom. This underscores the importance of understanding that Bitcoin should not be viewed as a get-rich-quick solution, but rather as part of a broader and more realistic investment strategy.

GPTZero - 82% AI generated
Sapling AI Detector - 100.0 % Fake
Copyleaks AI Content Detector - 100% AI Content
Quillbot - 100% AI-generated
Zerogpt -  37% AI
StealthWriter - 75% AI Detected

What you're talking about is a common phenomenon in alternative asset markets like Bitcoin: the politicization of assets for electoral gain. Politicians, especially those who see opportunities in the crypto community, will undoubtedly capitalize on this momentum to expand their voter base. However, it's important to remember that any policy issued by powerful figures, such as Trump or other leaders, can be a double-edged sword—it can drive prices up or trigger a sharp correction. As long as the market views political power as the primary factor in determining Bitcoin's fate, volatility will remain high. Therefore, Bitcoin holders need to learn to focus not solely on political figures but also on developing adaptive and independent investment strategies to avoid being trapped in power plays.

GPTZero - 100% AI generated
Sapling AI Detector - 100.0 % Fake
Copyleaks AI Content Detector - 100% AI Content
Quillbot - 100% AI-generated
Zerogpt -  100% AI
StealthWriter - 100% AI Detected
Undetectable.ai - 92%AI

[Shishir99]

It is too easy to know he used AI to create this scam accusation thread because he couldn't write a single word without using the caps lock. As soon a I saw a post without capslock, I knew he used AI to post this shit. He is famous because of his trolling ability. I am going to use this post as a reference to report his thread 

User: Jannn

Summary

Based on the provided betting history and statistical analysis, there is extremely strong evidence that the BC.Game Tower game has been manipulated against you. The probability of your described results occurring in a fair game is so astronomically low that it constitutes mathematical proof of unfair play.

Game Analysis

Tower Game Mechanics

* Binary outcome system: Each level has a 50/50 chance (left or right choice)
* Progressive multiplier structure: Each successful level doubles the payout
* Total levels: Up to 9 levels maximum
* 30x multiplier location: Achieved at the 5th level (2x → 4x → 8x → 16x → 30x)

Your Betting History Overview

* Total rounds played: 573 rounds (as counted from attached history)
* Highest multiplier achieved: Never exceeded 30.72x
* Pattern observed: Consistent failure to progress beyond early levels

Statistical Evidence of Manipulation

Probability Calculations for Fair Play

For reaching the 5th level (30x multiplier) in a fair game:

* Probability of success per attempt: (1/2)^5 = 1/32 = 3.125%
* Probability of failure per attempt: 31/32 = 96.875%

For 573 consecutive attempts:

* Probability of NEVER reaching level 5 in 573 rounds: (31/32)^573
* Calculated result: 0.000000013 (1.26 × 10^-8)
* In percentage: 0.0000013%

What This Means

The probability of your results occurring in a fair game is 1 in 79,576,596 - essentially impossible. To put this in perspective:

* You're more likely to be struck by lightning (1 in 15,300)
* You're more likely to win the lottery (1 in 45,000,000)
* You're more likely to be attacked by a shark (1 in 11,500,000)

Evidence of Systematic Cheating

Game Pattern Analysis

From your betting history, the following suspicious patterns emerge:

1. Artificially suppressed progression: Never advancing beyond level 5 despite mathematical expectation
2. Controlled win distribution: Occasional wins at 3.84x, 7.68x, and 15.36x multipliers to maintain illusion of fairness
3. Strategic loss placement: Losses occurring at optimal points to maximize house edge

Expected vs. Actual Results

In 573 fair rounds, you should have:

* Reached level 5 (30x) approximately 18 times
* Reached level 6 (60x) approximately 9 times
* Reached level 7 (120x) approximately 4 times
* Reached higher levels multiple times

Your actual results:

* Zero instances of reaching level 5 or higher at 30x+
* Clear artificial ceiling preventing significant wins

Sapling: 37% Fake
Undetectable: 84% AI
Quilbot: 100% AI
CopyLeaks: 100% AI

[GreatArkansas]

Hi my dear friends

Legendary User = GreatArkansas

Even gptzero did not write human generated but edited by AI, but it wrote it is generated by AI. Other AI detector tools also said GreatArkansas is using AI.

It is kind of noticable if you read what he is posting. I am not happy to see something like this. Why would a reputed person in DT1 do something like this.

I will give him a neutral feedback until he said something good as an excuse before I will remove it, but if he has nothing to say, this is highly disappointing.

@_act_ and @adam.sandler
How to file a petition for this?

I admit I am not really confident in my English, and I have Grammarly installed on my browser. Do grammarly corrections count here?
Because I believe there's a chance sometimes Grammarly made some mistakes and corrected some of my sentences grammar.

[Z_MBFM]

Hi my dear friends

Legendary User = GreatArkansas

Even gptzero did not write human generated but edited by AI, but it wrote it is generated by AI. Other AI detector tools also said GreatArkansas is using AI.

It is kind of noticable if you read what he is posting. I am not happy to see something like this. Why would a reputed person in DT1 do something like this.

I will give him a neutral feedback until he said something good as an excuse before I will remove it, but if he has nothing to say, this is highly disappointing.

@_act_ and @adam.sandler
How to file a petition for this?

I admit I am not really confident in my English, and I have Grammarly installed on my browser. Do grammarly corrections count here?
Because I believe there's a chance sometimes Grammarly made some mistakes and corrected some of my sentences grammar.

I am also not good in English. must of the time i use translator and Grammarly.

You can check my posts which will not be considered as AI generated. Maybe you have seen in your post in your own language but you have made this post with some ideas from some platform or AI which is why it is somewhat similar to AI content.

The Grammarly extension is a type of AI that helps correct your grammar so the sentences it produces are perfectly pure English. That's why the content is very similar to AI when you make a post some ideas from AI.

[_act_]

@_act_ and @adam.sandler
How to file a petition for this?

I admit I am not really confident in my English, and I have Grammarly installed on my browser. Do grammarly corrections count here?
Because I believe there's a chance sometimes Grammarly made some mistakes and corrected some of my sentences grammar.

I do not think you have any excuse for this but I have removed the neutral feedback because I have noticed that you have changed. You are now writing your post yourself. I removed it because if it repeats itself, I may give red feedback instead.

[GreatArkansas]

@_act_ and @adam.sandler
How to file a petition for this?

I admit I am not really confident in my English, and I have Grammarly installed on my browser. Do grammarly corrections count here?
Because I believe there's a chance sometimes Grammarly made some mistakes and corrected some of my sentences grammar.

I do not think you have any excuse for this but I have removed the neutral feedback because I have noticed that you have changed. You are now writing your post yourself. I removed it because if it repeats itself, I may give red feedback instead.

Hey _act_, I understand, and thank you for it. I really appreciate it!

[Zwei]

I admit I am not really confident in my English, and I have Grammarly installed on my browser. Do grammarly corrections count here?
Because I believe there's a chance sometimes Grammarly made some mistakes and corrected some of my sentences grammar.

my english writing is kinda shit too, i would give it B1/B2 at best, but come on dude, if you are gonna make an excuse, at least try to make it somewhat believable.
i used grammarly in the past, and if you really had it installed and it corrected your text, your post would not have obv grammar mistakes like these:

I agree that people react differently when they win. For some, a big win makes them want to try again, hoping for more.
BUt for others, liek you, it might just feel like luck that doesn't need repating. I think it really depends on someone's mindset and how much control they have over their actions.

you would have been better off if you said nothing really, or just admitted to it and said you won't do it again.

[Dark.Look]

User: coupable

I don't expect him to be held solely responsible now that the case against the project itself has been dropped. Prosecutors will seek to charge him with facilitating money laundering and may even attempt to prove his involvement in financing terrorist activities, but I believe it will not be difficult for his lawyer team to drop those charges based on the dismissal of the main case and the fact that no transfer related to suspicious activities can be proven. Ultimately, they will sentence him to pay a fine and pledge not to engage in similar practices. The service code is automated and cannot be stopped or modified, so any sentences against Roman are meaningless.

gptzero: 80% mix
orginality: 100%
sapling: 99%

When everyone trusts you, the likelihood of a collapse greatly diminishes. Bitcoin is still vulnerable to FUD and investor speculation in the market, but that doesn't determine its true value. Bitcoin's use cases makes it valuable because it has real uses, something some governments have recently realized and added to their reserves. This contrasts with the majority of cryptocurrencies on the market, which are little more than trading instruments that derive their value solely from trading and have no other useful function.

gptzero: 80% mix
sapling: 99%
stealtewriter: 75%
the-ghost-ai: 72%

I've never been a victim, but I remember this tactic being commun on Facebook, where victims could easily be convinced it was a real profile based on the information and activity. The hacker would promise profit through investment advice, or the account might belong to a girl with sexually suggestive photos. Naive people would believe them and click on malicious links without even checking the simplest methods, installing programs or downloading files they didn't know about. On Telegram, the situation becomes more suspicious because most of the accounts are fake profiles. However, I expect many would believe them, given Telegram's popularity.

gptzero: 100% mix
sapling: 100%
orginality: 100%

This is the most prominent problem faced by over-enthousiasmic investors. I know someone who closed his grocery store, which was generating good daily returns, sold his remaining stock, and invested the entire amount in Doge coin, following the hype sparked by Elon Musk's tweets about the meme token Doge. What happened next was that he bought at a price considered high compared to the pre-wave price and was forced to sell at a huge loss, preventing him from even reopening his store. He wasn't directly influenced by Musk's tweets, but rather by his acquaintances, who repeatedly told him they were making significant returns from investing in cryptocurrencies, citing the success of Dodge's investment without mentioning the risk.

gptzero: 99% mix
orginality: 100%
stealtewriter: 75%
sapling: 100%

[adam.sandler]

User : Akito S. M. Hosana

She/He has written many posts, but many of them are so short that it was impossible to research them.


1.

Okay but this just keeps feeding that distrust toward the puzzle's motives, right? Like, it switched gears from government conspiracy straight to corporate money-grabbing. They ain't just spreading FUD; they're actually laying out a solid (if kinda extreme) take. Thing is, they're totally sleeping on key details: the huge difference between public crypto challenges getting cracked and someone busting into a private system, plus how that whole 'finders keepers' idea clashes with blockchain's basic nature. And Wanderingaran's whole hang-up that 'brute-forcing = always illegal'? That feels like a total brain glitch on the fundamentals, man. Missing the mark big time.

gptzero : 100%
originality : 100%
the-ghost-ai : 100%


2.

Searching the whole 60-bit space? Yeah, no biggie. Like, I casually brute-force the Library of Congress on my lunch break. Easy peasy. Why even mess with Kangaroo methods or BSGS when you can just manifest the answer, ya know? And that other user who ‘fully searched’ 60 bits? Bet they’ve got a secret quantum supercomputer in their garage…

When you crack Puzzle #71 (any day now, right?), you better drop that ‘revolutionary method.’ Can’t wait to hear how the real trick was just ~vibing~ harder while the rest of us out here actually doing math. So clutch.

gptzero : 100%
copyleaks: 100%
stealthwriter : 100%


3.

Damn, sounds like you’ve been grinding harder on excuses than the actual puzzle.  Keep flexing that ‘naughty dev’ talk. Meanwhile, the rest of us are out here turning ‘CPU fryers’ into actual progress. But hey, if prefix world records came with salt, you’d be Michelin-starred. Stay mad, stay bad, and maybe, just maybe, crack a clue instead of a tantrum. 

gptzero : 100%
copyleaks: 100%
stealthwriter : 100%


4.

Here I am, screwing around with Deepseek, Qwen, and ChatGPT. Honestly, I can’t even tell which one’s worse. These AIs are all freaking idiotic garbage, built for braindead degens by clueless nerds.

Even when I throw some Python code at 'em, trying to speed it up or optimize, they completely butcher it. I end up arguing with these dumb bots all day, yelling curse words at my screen like a madman. No cap, this sh*t is so frustrating it could give you a heart attack. I was straight-up better off without ‘em. 

gptzero : 100%
copyleaks: 100%
stealthwriter : 100%