Acceptable uses of AI in the forum (unofficial)

[igebotz]

Adapting to technology do not mean we should be communicating with an AI that is 10X smarter than human reasoning even though they were programmed by same humans. Some of these things that are not allowed is what makes the bitcointalk forum stand out among other forums because if some of them were to be allowed, there won't be any difference between the forum and social media platforms.

How can you not like something that is x10 smarter than you ( your words)? Are you allergy to leaning new things? 

Before I sleep I'm going to ask AI to create a shit loads of SQL code for tomorrow work - gives me enough time to drink bear

[Floxynice]

Yes, or would you like to create a thread with the help of an AI while i crack my brain to respond to you? Never!

Glad you know that's cheating, and I do not think a reputable forum like Bitcointalk will ever allow its members to flood the forum with AI-generated posts. Many shitposters would rather prefer to make posts with AI and reply with AI. We all would miss the Bitcointalk forum if that ever becomes the case.

[PrimeNumber7]

I think we should treat AI-generated posts the same as any other post. If the content of the post is on-topic, coherent, and adds to the conversation, it should be allowed, and if it does not, it should not.

I am a heavy user of AI at work, and use it to help generate content. If the output of the assistant from my prompt is exactly what I need, then I will use exactly what the AI assistant provided. However, most of the time, the AI assistant provides output that needs to be modified, and I will either make a follow-up prompt or will modify the output myself before using it as work product. This allows me to be more efficient at my job, which is what is currently expected of me, specifically because of AI.

Any output from AI is the result of whatever prompt the user created, and to my knowledge, according to the TOS, the user owns the output of any prompts they create.

I know that some are concerned about AI-generated "shit posts" however, existing rules already disallow these types of low-value/effort posts, and the fact that a post is generated by AI doesn't really change that.

As a side note, I think some are afraid that posts being made by AI will result in fewer eyeballs looking at those banners below everyone's posts, which makes them less valuable, although I don't think many will say that part outloud.

[Vod]

Yes, or would you like to create a thread with the help of an AI while i crack my brain to respond to you? Never!

Glad you know that's cheating, and I do not think a reputable forum like Bitcointalk will ever allow its members to flood the forum with AI-generated posts. Many shitposters would rather prefer to make posts with AI and reply with AI. We all would miss the Bitcointalk forum if that ever becomes the case.

I don't think anyone wants to see the forum flooded with AI generated posts, simply because it's an easier resource to access than intelligent thinking, and it will degrade the forum further.   However, there is nothing wrong with using AI to help you write your post.  Let me use an example:

I saw someone write recently about new forum development being a waste from day one because everyone has switched over to mobile.  I know that's not true, but I can either reply "nuh uh, you're an idiot" or I can waste time researching just how many people have switched over, OR I can ask AI and get the answer, which I can write in my own words.   Surprise!  I've been using AI to respond to stupid posts for some time, but I have never felt the need to copy/paste what it generated verbatim. 

I reject the scammer mentality above of cheating if you don't get caught, and suggest simple rules.  Something like content generated by an AI must be in a quote with the source.  This way it cannot be used in a signature campaign.   So to response to the questionable stat of mobile use, DS says only 58 percent access via mobile, and tablet 3 percent. 

[Obim34]

Adapting to technology do not mean we should be communicating with an AI that is 10X smarter than human reasoning even though they were programmed by same humans. Some of these things that are not allowed is what makes the bitcointalk forum stand out among other forums because if some of them were to be allowed, there won't be any difference between the forum and social media platforms.

How can you not like something that is x10 smarter than you ( your words)? Are you allergy to leaning new things? 

Before I sleep I'm going to ask AI to create a shit loads of SQL code for tomorrow work - gives me enough time to drink bear

Saying not to use AI at all both outside of the forum is something difficult to do with. AI makes our learning process easier and faster, i don't mind taking lessons from AI and research but my post content shouldn't be generated by an AI, i can get information asked then in my own understanding give out from what i understood.

If the forum is kept open for the use of AI generated posts, i think the number of posts both quality and shit posts will increase, long texts occupying spaces whereby it could take just a few lines of explanation by the human knowledge. Trust me, the more usage of AI in the forum the less knowledge being shared among ourselves since no one tries to read down all they do is copy and paste but on me i don't buy the idea of giving into use of AI in the forum creating posts.

[Shishir99]

Exactly why I emphasised the usage on the other thread- AI in the hands of an illiterate will cause mayhem, but we can't dispute that it has done more good than bad since it was invented, and we're still in the early stages - just imagine 10 years from now.

To get better results from AI, you have to know what to ask and how. If you can be precise, AI can give you solutions. Take that post for example, if he would ask AI how to maintain a hardware crypto wallet instead of asking how to maintain a wallet, that would provide him a better answer than suggesting to wash it with detergent powder. Yes, we are still in the early stages of the AI revolution.

I think I have seen Elon Musk telling people that AI is going to take over the world and it is going to affect us negatively. But I guess his point of view changed which is why he have Grok now and proposed to buy open AI for $97.4 Billion dollars. In ten years, almost every devices like fridge, TV, AC, and many more will come with built-in AI.

[PowerGlove]

Did you ask ChatGPT to give you some links?

Of course, I hardly use search engines like google anymore. I had to do my part, though, as it first gave me some sources that I did not consider of quality, like wikipedia, and I refined the search a couple of times, apart from selecting from what it gave me.

I'd personally (that is, if it were you and I talking rather than you and suchmoon) find a response consisting of a lightly-curated set of ChatGPT-sourced links to be pretty irritating...

When I'm chatting with someone, I'm interested in engaging with them (and enjoying their style of writing/talking/thinking, while considering their perspective on things, and maybe setting aside some time to digest the resources that they have recommended to me, etc.)

If someone feels that they must involve the output of an artificial intelligence model in their post (even if it's just to clean up their writing), then I'd personally prefer that that was made very clear (so that I know what not to consider when trying to evaluate them; beyond knowing what content I should ignore, I also don't want to, for example, think "Wow this person is very detail-oriented!" only to later find out that, when writing without assistance, they're actually the kind of person who frequently mixes up "its" and "it's").

One of the things that worries me about this new generative AI frontier is the difficult-to-appreciate damage that I think it's going to inflict on society as human activity shifts even further away from "comprehension", and further towards "productivity". That is, people seem to think that it's a good idea to be able to operate outside of the limits of their own understanding, and to, for example, write programs beyond their ability as a programmer, or make music beyond their ability as a musician, or paint scenes beyond their ability as an artist. While most people seem super excited about these new low-comprehension paths to productivity being opened up, I mostly just see paths that will inevitably lower the average value of things as it becomes less and less popular for people to invest the time it takes to build real expertise in something.


What follows is a personal anecdote that probably most people can't relate to, so feel free to skip it, but, when I was a kid, I was fascinated (to put it mildly) by computer games and wanted to know how to make one myself. Back then, the answer wasn't "That's easy, just pick between Unity and Unreal Engine!", it was "Computer games are just programs. Advanced computer games are advanced computer programs. If you're aiming to make high-quality computer games, then you'll need to become a highly competent computer programmer, first."

That put me on a learning path that went: Logo (via "turtle graphics"), then BASIC, then Pascal, and then C and x86 assembly. Looking back, I feel really fortunate that I was effectively forced (by the lack of easier alternatives) to go down that very difficult and very tedious path (which was honestly way too challenging for me at the age I started, but, I didn't know that at the time, and so I just did my best and kept trying and trying until things clicked). I'm grateful because, by the time I was 13 (and my friends were struggling with problems like how to style their hair, or how to get shoes with lights in them), I was happily programming little graphical demos and implementing things like Bresenham's line algorithm in x86 assembly and learning about things like perspective projection, and had somehow become a surprisingly well-rounded if very inexperienced programmer. I didn't know it at the time, but I now know (or at least, very strongly suspect) that minus that early high-difficulty foundation (or one similar to it) I'd be a much, much less capable person today (I mean, life knocked me off the path I started down, like it does to many people, and I never actually did get involved in commercial game development, but I did do a lot of dependency-free DOS-era gamedev in private, and that ended up forming the bedrock of my programming style).

From my perspective, the skill of programmers (on average) has been dropping for a long time now. Most programming these days seems to be about stitching together a set of not-fully-understood dependencies, and then hoping for the best while you endlessly push bugs around or turn them from one kind into another. Add a synthetic "programming assistant" to the mix and even the stitching becomes something that most people will decide not to do on their own (which means that they'll typically neither understand the components being bound together, nor understand the binding itself; writing code that appears to work correctly is easy, it's the full comprehension of it along with all of its dependencies that's the hard part).

[criptoevangelista]

Did you ask ChatGPT to give you some links?

Of course, I hardly use search engines like google anymore. I had to do my part, though, as it first gave me some sources that I did not consider of quality, like wikipedia, and I refined the search a couple of times, apart from selecting from what it gave me.

I'd personally (that is, if it were you and I talking rather than you and suchmoon) find a response consisting of a lightly-curated set of ChatGPT-sourced links to be pretty irritating...

When I'm chatting with someone, I'm interested in engaging with them (and enjoying their style of writing/talking/thinking, while considering their perspective on things, and maybe setting aside some time to digest the resources that they have recommended to me, etc.)

If someone feels that they must involve the output of an artificial intelligence model in their post (even if it's just to clean up their writing), then I'd personally prefer that that was made very clear (so that I know what not to consider when trying to evaluate them; beyond knowing what content I should ignore, I also don't want to, for example, think "Wow this person is very detail-oriented!" only to later find out that, when writing without assistance, they're actually the kind of person who frequently mixes up "its" and "it's").

One of the things that worries me about this new generative AI frontier is the difficult-to-appreciate damage that I think it's going to inflict on society as human activity shifts even further away from "comprehension", and further towards "productivity". That is, people seem to think that it's a good idea to be able to operate outside of the limits of their own understanding, and to, for example, write programs beyond their ability as a programmer, or make music beyond their ability as a musician, or paint scenes beyond their ability as an artist. While most people seem super excited about these new low-comprehension paths to productivity being opened up, I mostly just see paths that will inevitably lower the average value of things as it becomes less and less popular for people to invest the time it takes to build real expertise in something.


What follows is a personal anecdote that probably most people can't relate to, so feel free to skip it, but, when I was a kid, I was fascinated (to put it mildly) by computer games and wanted to know how to make one myself. Back then, the answer wasn't "That's easy, just pick between Unity and Unreal Engine!", it was "Computer games are just programs. Advanced computer games are advanced computer programs. If you're aiming to make high-quality computer games, then you'll need to become a highly competent computer programmer, first."

That put me on a learning path that went: Logo (via "turtle graphics"), then BASIC, then Pascal, and then C and x86 assembly. Looking back, I feel really fortunate that I was effectively forced (by the lack of easier alternatives) to go down that very difficult and very tedious path (which was honestly way too challenging for me at the age I started, but, I didn't know that at the time, and so I just did my best and kept trying and trying until things clicked). I'm grateful because, by the time I was 13 (and my friends were struggling with problems like how to style their hair, or how to get shoes with lights in them), I was happily programming little graphical demos and implementing things like Bresenham's line algorithm in x86 assembly and learning about things like perspective projection, and had somehow become a surprisingly well-rounded if very inexperienced programmer. I didn't know it at the time, but I now know (or at least, very strongly suspect) that minus that early high-difficulty foundation (or one similar to it) I'd be a much, much less capable person today (I mean, life knocked me off the path I started down, like it does to many people, and I never actually did get involved in commercial game development, but I did do a lot of dependency-free DOS-era gamedev in private, and that ended up forming the bedrock of my programming style).

From my perspective, the skill of programmers (on average) has been dropping for a long time now. Most programming these days seems to be about stitching together a set of not-fully-understood dependencies, and then hoping for the best while you endlessly push bugs around or turn them from one kind into another. Add a synthetic "programming assistant" to the mix and even the stitching becomes something that most people will decide not to do on their own (which means that they'll typically neither understand the components being bound together, nor understand the binding itself; writing code that appears to work correctly is easy, it's the full comprehension of it along with all of its dependencies that's the hard part).

We will reach a point where art and music will be almost entirely replaced by AI, discouraging people from creating new things... but we will also reach a point where AIs will be fed basically by content generated by themselves, that is, there will come a point where AI will start to become dumb and we will once again have stimuli and a need to have more real people creating and producing again... we will have a paradox in truth. 

[SensitiveEyes]

Post content should not be generated using AI but who does not use AI outside of the forum. It is beginning to be used by people who did not consider it before because AI offers so many ways to learn. If someone suggests we should not use it at all outside of the forum it is their advice but not their place to force others.

Saying not to use AI at all both outside of the forum is something difficult to do with. AI makes our learning process easier and faster, i don't mind taking lessons from AI and research but my post content shouldn't be generated by an AI, i can get information asked then in my own understanding give out from what i understood.

If the forum is kept open for the use of AI generated posts, i think the number of posts both quality and shit posts will increase, long texts occupying spaces whereby it could take just a few lines of explanation by the human knowledge. Trust me, the more usage of AI in the forum the less knowledge being shared among ourselves since no one tries to read down all they do is copy and paste but on me i don't buy the idea of giving into use of AI in the forum creating posts.

[DiMarxist]

The use of the technology has been prohibited from the beginning in the forum and it is good because it helps users to use use their brains to think and read more. And the best way to us the new technology in forum is as a dictionary. You can check of a new entry word in your brain to know the meaning. That is the only way I advise people to use the AI system and not to use it to write. If AI is permitted in the forum in any way, quality contributions will fade away and newbies will not use it the way you wanted but on their own way.

[Free Market Capitalist]

So... professional forum users using AI for... ?

I prefer to focus on the positive, and that's why I started this thread.

Honestly I don't see any purpose for it here but if you insist, the least you can do is attribute it, if not for some deep ethical reasons then for CYA.

Cover my ass for what? You didn't answer the main question. Do I have to attribute every search I make to Google? I'll answer that for you: no, because nobody does.

I'd personally (that is, if it were you and I talking rather than you and suchmoon) find a response consisting of a lightly-curated set of ChatGPT-sourced links to be pretty irritating...

Do you find these pretty irritating as well?

Top 10 Ridiculed Inventions That Became Successful

20 genius inventions that were ridiculed, now everyday products

7 world-changing inventions people thought were dumb fads

Searched with google.com

I actually find that negative attitude that denies the obvious quite irritating.

I wouldn't call it "world changing"...

Because if you're starting from those prejudices, it's clear that no matter how much effort I put in, you're not going to change your stance (something you confirm to the point of not even being clear about what referral link spam is after 11 years on the forum).

I've just added point 6 due to this conversation to the OP btw.

[suchmoon]

Cover my ass for what? You didn't answer the main question. Do I have to attribute every search I make to Google? I'll answer that for you: no, because nobody does.

A search engine typically doesn't hallucinate and doesn't produce content. So technically in a very narrow use case of just using ChatGPT to provide links, and if you have made sure that those links are real and not hallucinated and otherwise identical to a search engine result, perhaps you don't need to attribute, however I would still do so just for consistency and transparency, and I don't know why I would go through the trouble instead of using a good old search engine, but that's just me.

Beyond that you absolutely need to CYA. If you ever get a piece of text that ends up triggering the AI detectors or appears to be plagiarised, you would be responsible. You should also read OpenAI terms and conditions, particularly if you want to use its product somewhere more serious than a forum.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Beyond that you absolutely need to CYA. If you ever get a piece of text that ends up triggering the AI detectors or appears to be plagiarised, you would be responsible.

First, you threatened me by saying I had broken the rule about ref links, and nothing could be further from the truth.

Then you implied there was some wrongdoing in using AI as a search engine, which is also false, and you had to admit it.

And now you come at me with this, which isn’t even in line with the most active anti-AI thread, which ends up neutrally tagging accounts if they use at least 70% AI.

Conclusion: you can shove that threatening tone up your ass.

[memehunter]

From my perspective, the skill of programmers (on average) has been dropping for a long time now.

While you listed a particular field, I have to say I am in agreement with your analysis and will further add that overall comprehension and analytical abilities are going down, which is very alarming. The majority of members are here to learn from legends while simultaneously developing themselves. They do not need this forum for 90% of their queries, but it is essential that these discussions still take place at the level of human experience here.  
This will only equip us better on how to more effectively use AI.

[suchmoon]

First, you threatened me by saying I had broken the rule about ref links, and nothing could be further from the truth.

I wasn't threatening. I pointed out that ref links are not allowed. You're hung up on the word "spam" but I would just not post any ref links and leave no room for interpretation for moderators.

Then you implied there was some wrongdoing in using AI as a search engine, which is also false, and you had to admit it.

I did not "imply wrongdoing", not sure where you're getting that. You do whatever you want. I don't have to like it even if it's not technically wrong.

And now you come at me with this, which isn’t even in line with the most active anti-AI thread, which ends up neutrally tagging accounts if they use at least 70% AI.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Do you want to get neutral tagged or would you rather add attribution and avoid any misunderstanding? Do you want to get banned for plagiarism or would you rather add attribution and avoid any misunderstanding? Just to make it clear before you perceive this as threatening: I wouldn't consider reporting you or anything like that. But if you insist on posting ChatGPT output without attribution, it's just matter of time before someone does.

Conclusion: you can shove that threatening tone up your ass.

Again, I'm sorry about that. Certainly not my intent.

I don't like talking to AI bots, directly or via copy-paste of other users here, simple as that. You created a thread about that so not sure what you were expecting here.

[PowerGlove]

Do you find these pretty irritating as well?

Top 10 Ridiculed Inventions That Became Successful

20 genius inventions that were ridiculed, now everyday products

7 world-changing inventions people thought were dumb fads

Searched with google.com

Haha, yeah. I do. (To be clear, if what you used Google for was to retrieve the links to articles which you have previously read, enjoyed, and are now recommending to me, then I wouldn't be irritated by that. But if all you did was use Google to just now find some articles saying something, then, yeah, that's kind of irritating, isn't it? I mean, I could just do that myself.)

I actually find that negative attitude that denies the obvious quite irritating.

Are you talking about me or suchmoon?

If you're talking about me, then, I don't think that I'm "denying the obvious", am I? I'm just saying that I prefer to interact with people in ways that familiarize me with them rather than their assistants, and that I'm worried that people are going to eagerly embrace, at the great expense of their own skill development, this new low-effort way of "creating".

If you're talking about suchmoon, then, I think that they probably feel similarly, and that you're interpreting their post in a too-literal and ungenerous way. (As in, I don't think that their position is actually "AI isn't changing the world". Probably they just meant that, in their view, it's not something that deserves the positive connotations associated with language like "world changing".)

[Free Market Capitalist]

Haha, yeah. I do. (To be clear, if what you used Google for was to retrieve the links to articles which you have previously read, enjoyed, and are now recommending to me, then I wouldn't be irritated by that. But if all you did was use Google to just now find some articles saying something, then, yeah, that's kind of irritating, isn't it? I mean, I could just do that myself.)

No, you couldn't do that yourself if you deny the obvious, that AI is already changing the world. And no, I didn't just retrieve some links from the internet. What I did was find links that supported my real-life personal experience, and I'm sure that if I had talked about it without providing links, suchmoon would have questioned it as well.

I was talking to a hospital director back in September or October of 2022, just before ChatGPT was launched, who explained to me how doctors had been using AI for years already, something that aligns with the first link from a very reliable source, dated 2020. I also know a lawyer who uses ChatGPT for his work; he told me he has it trained to his needs. And so on.

Are you talking about me or suchmoon?

suchmoon

I wasn't threatening. I pointed out that ref links are not allowed. You're hung up on the word "spam" but I would just not post any ref links and leave no room for interpretation for moderators.

4. No referral code (ref link) spam. [1]

A referral code is a unique combination of letters or numbers that identifies and connects participants in a referral program. It acts as a key that unlocks rewards or incentives when used by someone to refer others to a particular product, service, or business.

Source

But if you insist on posting ChatGPT output without attribution, it's just matter of time before someone does.

Where did I say that? Apart from the obvious case of using AI as a search engine.

Again, I'm sorry about that. Certainly not my intent.

Apologies accepted.

[suchmoon]

4. No referral code (ref link) spam. [1]

A referral code is a unique combination of letters or numbers that identifies and connects participants in a referral program. It acts as a key that unlocks rewards or incentives when used by someone to refer others to a particular product, service, or business.

I'm still not following what you're saying. Here are the links you posted:

Code:

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-at-work-readers-59e23819?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2025/01/ai-scientific-productivity/681298/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/technology/how-is-ai-changing-the-legal-profession/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/05/10/15-amazing-real-world-applications-of-ai-everyone-should-know-about/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

utm_source identifies the source (referrer). Those are ref links. Are you trying to say they're not?

[ABCbits]

4. No referral code (ref link) spam. [1]

A referral code is a unique combination of letters or numbers that identifies and connects participants in a referral program. It acts as a key that unlocks rewards or incentives when used by someone to refer others to a particular product, service, or business.

I'm still not following what you're saying. Here are the links you posted:

Code:

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-at-work-readers-59e23819?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2025/01/ai-scientific-productivity/681298/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/technology/how-is-ai-changing-the-legal-profession/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/05/10/15-amazing-real-world-applications-of-ai-everyone-should-know-about/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

utm_source identifies the source (referrer). Those are ref links. Are you trying to say they're not?

Looking at Wikipedia and one of Google documentation, personally i would say no. Although i'd like to see moderators opinion about this UTM tag.

Parameter    Purpose    Example
utm_source    Identifies which site sent the traffic, and is a required parameter.    utm_source=google

Parameter   Required   Example   Description
Campaign Source utm_source   Yes   google   Use utm_source to identify a search engine, newsletter name, or other source.

P.S. I only copy-pasted and add bold tag.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I'm still not following what you're saying. Here are the links you posted:

Code:

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-at-work-readers-59e23819?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2025/01/ai-scientific-productivity/681298/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/technology/how-is-ai-changing-the-legal-profession/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/05/10/15-amazing-real-world-applications-of-ai-everyone-should-know-about/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

utm_source identifies the source (referrer). Those are ref links. Are you trying to say they're not?

Look, I even put it in giant letters for you, huh? Those might be reference/referrer codes, not referral codes. A referral code is one that earns you money for posting it, they're typical in casinos. For example, the classic newbie who starts a thread like this:

"Hey guys, I just found this website that allow you to get bitcoin for free, have look and let me know what you think:

freebitco.**/Ref:0936429"

That’s a referral code, that’s what the rules prohibit. And I’m telling you this with full knowledge because I’ve reported quite a few that were deleted, and the report was marked as valid.

Looking at Wikipedia and one of Google documentation, personally i would say no.

No, he’s not going to be satisfied anyway. Before, he was warning that if you copy something from ChatGPT and don’t attribute it, you’d be in trouble (when what the forum actually punishes is blatant copy-pasting of at least 70%), and now even these links that clearly show the source also bother him.

This brings me to the next point I want to address, and I’ll get into it later. It’s about how to make good use of the blend between AI-generated information and your own content. Let’s see if people can stop with the silly complaints and we can have a serious discussion.