Use of AI on Bitcoin talk

[smelody]

If anyone used the news portal copy and paste, In this stages will account banned ?
If account holder realized it's violation of forum rule and remove the related post still be banned the account?

[1714251873]

1714251873

[1714251873]

1714251873

[1714251873]

1714251873

[1714251873]

1714251873

[FatFork]

If anyone used the news portal copy and paste, In this stages will account banned ?

First offense? Maybe you'll only get a slap on the wrist (post deleted by a moderator). But keep plagiarizing content, and you're outta here. Plagiarism is a no-go according to the forum rules, and the mods decide how harsh the penalty gets.

If account holder realized it's violation of forum rule and remove the related post still be banned the account?

Probably not!  Most mods are cool with folks cleaning up their own messes.

[pattrick]

If you are using a tool like grammarly and your primary intention is to improve the grammar, it should not be problem. But if you are spamming with AI generated text, this will not be tolerated. You should also report such posts if you come across them. This could have become a major problem for a big forum for bitcointalk but the good thing is that there are many active members who report these kind of posts on time.

[lovesmayfamilis]

If anyone used the news portal copy and paste, In this stages will account banned ?
If account holder realized it's violation of forum rule and remove the related post still be banned the account?

The fact that you have removed evidence of your plagiarism does not mean that the forum will forget it. Don’t forget that archives exist, and if necessary, interested people will always be able to check whether your story was plagiarized or not since you will have a tag as a reminder.
But yes, the moderators gave you a chance to improve your posting, and you were not banned this time. But you should not be vindictive when your mistakes are pointed out to you. Look what you did today!

The user examplens posting AI content and I suspect it.

sapling.ai Fake: 18.9%:
https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector/e5dc28b08011e3873a9da1980615e942

Post link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5416985.msg63243288#msg63243288

sapling.ai Fake: 100%:
https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector/adb96eb4dbc0ca2c746f9271ae3da2ec

Post link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5453580.msg62281780#msg62281780

You accused the participant of using an AI tool without reading the rules at all and without delving into the correctness of the assessment you made. And the only reason is that examplens made you a good and fair comment.

My countdown to junior member. Anyone review my post and give only 1 Merit(s) please...
Number of Merit(s) left: only 1

Don't beg for merit. It's hard for you to get merit from pity, and it's against the forum's rules.
I looked at your posts and didn't see a single one worth one merit. Also, the feedback you have on the profile, refers to plagiarism, and that is certainly not helpful.
You can do it much better.

lovesmayfamilis

2024-02-22

Reference

Plagiarism

Your desire to gain merit in any way seems very obsessive and funny.

[examplens]

You accused the participant of using an AI tool without reading the rules at all and without delving into the correctness of the assessment you made. And the only reason is that examplens made you a good and fair comment.

Just a few days ago, he sent me a PM "Just for Thanking" with a lot of appreciation and pleasure. Now I'm not sure that exposing my use of AI is an expression of dissatisfaction because I didn't delete the questionable post.
It's amazing how obsessed people are with AI-text tools.

[Kavelj22]

I do not support the effectiveness of fraud detection applications because they are still inaccurate to use in judging any suspicious content.

Services and online applications that provide AI detection that offer the service for free are barely trustworthy. 

Some of them might work sometimes but at times, they are inaccurate as you say. I say this because I have tried most of them with actual AI-generated texts and most of them aren't providing accurate results. The percentage they provide for the text to be AI-generated is very low whereas one can understand that the text is AI-generated just by reading through it.

I was not going to care about the issue until I noticed the interest of Bounty campaign managers to avoid assigning members who use AI to produce publications and in other cases punish those found guilty. But what determines whether or not there is a conviction if there is no accurate way to discover this? In many examples, I am certain that a particular post was made by AI, but I cannot make an official accusation because I do not have enough evidence other than my innate intuition. I really hope no one is wronged because of this.

This is in addition to the great possibility that there will be a similarity between one of these texts and what a human mind might produce. The issue is getting more complicated, in my opinion.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Even in the aforementioned thread there's responses from over a week ago that came out as AI generated text with 98% certainty, and the mods still did not remove it.

I think mods are in a quite difficult situation when they evaluate AI reports. First things first, there is no rule which prohibits the use of AI. So, reporting it and using "AI" as excuse, does not satisfy the conditions for deletion. Only if the post is completely meaningless, it'd be removed, but that's because being "completely meaningless" is against the rules. So, if someone used accurate AI responses, I'm not entirely sure what a mod should do.

Should there be more mobilization of users in that regard? Perhaps start giving neg trust to those abusing AI to make posts... Or we just don't care about it anymore?

If it's totally apparent, then yes. Any account which is essentially run by a chatbot, presented as a human, cannot be trusted.

[JollyGood]

There should be a deterrent in the form of an official announcement that would make those using AI on a continuous basis beyond grammar correction face a permanent ban. At the moment the appropriate acceptable course of action to take is to either report the post and/or leave a neutral tag. As this problem will only increase with time (because of signature spammers), an announcement will probably be made to address it.

If you are using a tool like grammarly and your primary intention is to improve the grammar, it should not be problem. But if you are spamming with AI generated text, this will not be tolerated. You should also report such posts if you come across them. This could have become a major problem for a big forum for bitcointalk but the good thing is that there are many active members who report these kind of posts on time.

[smelody]

Don't keep to yourself behind Kids, Keep walking hand in hand. This job doesn't suit you.

[decodx]

Don't keep to yourself behind Kids, Keep walking hand in hand. This job doesn't suit you.

Your wording is confusing. Can you try saying it again in a way that makes sense?

And by the way, lovesmayfamilis is right. You can't just accuse reputed members of using AI-generated content if you're not competent enough to use AI detection tools properly.  You gotta learn to tie your shoes before you win a marathon!

[jokers10]

I was not going to care about the issue until I noticed the interest of Bounty campaign managers to avoid assigning members who use AI to produce publications and in other cases punish those found guilty. But what determines whether or not there is a conviction if there is no accurate way to discover this? In many examples, I am certain that a particular post was made by AI, but I cannot make an official accusation because I do not have enough evidence other than my innate intuition. I really hope no one is wronged because of this.

This is in addition to the great possibility that there will be a similarity between one of these texts and what a human mind might produce. The issue is getting more complicated, in my opinion.

You can use this topic and try to detect with several reliable detectors. If there are several posts detected by Copyleaks, Hive Moderation and Sapling, then any chance that a user didn't use any AI is about zero. If they weren't caught this time, let them make more mistakes. Many when slightly editing AI texts forget that AI takes his words from Internet, so once they will be caught on plagiarism when big enough parts of texts from some outer source will be found in what they post. Those who are too lazy to write by themselves or who have too many accounts for that, will make many mistakes and being caught for them is just a matter of time.