💚TalkGPT.cc | Free AI Detector for Bitcointalk posts | Open-Source Extension👑

[jcojci]

It is a good tools to know if the post is AI or not. But instead of download the extension, I will waiting for a web version/user script.  That is a good option for those who don't wants to download the extension.

[dkbit98]

We pm'ed you for more information. Our extension as per our testing works in both browsers.

For some reason it is not working on my Firefox browser, and in past I installed extensions manually, so I know how it is done.
Like I said, I don't like installing extensions and it would be better if you could convert extension into userscript, that can be used in all web browsers.
For this testing I used Brave browser to install TalkGPT extesnion and for most posts I clicked it showed result AI-likelihood: Too short.
This is not very useful for me, and I tested all kind of posts, longer and shorter that had exact same result.
I also didn't like position of Not scanned button in the top left corner of each post, and I think it would make more sense to move it on the right side.

[BuckyLucky]

We pm'ed you for more information. Our extension as per our testing works in both browsers.

For some reason it is not working on my Firefox browser, and in past I installed extensions manually, so I know how it is done.
Like I said, I don't like installing extensions and it would be better if you could convert extension into userscript, that can be used in all web browsers.
For this testing I used Brave browser to install TalkGPT extesnion and for most posts I clicked it showed result AI-likelihood: Too short.
This is not very useful for me, and I tested all kind of posts, longer and shorter that had exact same result.
I also didn't like position of Not scanned button in the top left corner of each post, and I think it would make more sense to move it on the right side.

Thank you for the feedback. "AI-likelihood: Too short" error appears when the post is less than 300 characters or less than 85 words. We will create a userscript as well so don't worry. It's strange that you can't make it work though, since it works fine on our systems. Did you test in Google Chrome too? (the non firefox version)

[Vod]

OP - I do not see a readme.md in your extension.   What license did you release the code under?

1) When someone requests AI detection, is the result viewable by everyone, or does each person need to generate it?   Does it persist between page loads?
2) If #1 is implemented properly, you should consider gradient text to draw attention to the better quality posts.
3) There are so many broken quote links, how will your AI deal with inconsistency?
4) How will you handle edits in a AI processed post?

[BuckyLucky]

OP - I do not see a readme.md in your extension.   What license did you release the code under?

1) When someone requests AI detection, is the result viewable by everyone, or does each person need to generate it?   Does it persist between page loads?
2) If #1 is implemented properly, you should consider gradient text to draw attention to the better quality posts.
3) There are so many broken quote links, how will your AI deal with inconsistency?
4) How will you handle edits in a AI processed post?

Hello Vod, thank you for your feedback. We added an MIT License as of today.

When someone requests an AI detection, the result is NOT viewable by everyone. It does not persist between page loads.

If we understood your question correctly, our extension does NOT scan quoted text.

If you still have any questions, please let as know.

[CryptSafe]

I doubt this AI detector would give accurate results as it relates to AI posts. I do not really think this would be able to give a clean output void of errors in detection as we discussed; however, there is room for improvement because I believe with time and more inputs into the system, it would be accurate and okay to use by many in time to come, but since this is the earliest stage of it, we can keep contributing and a making better review of our experience with the extension to keept it in track.

[BuckyLucky]

We also launched a userscript and a web scanner for people who don't like extensions!

You can find everything at https://talkgpt.cc

[Vod]

When someone requests an AI detection, the result is NOT viewable by everyone. It does not persist between page loads.

You should look into changing this.   Do you want people to go through the trouble of installing an extension just to check a score?  More likely they will enjoy seeing other scores as well, and it will increase your usage.  It's the same reason I added "Pulsed by..." to the bitcointalk page - people like seeing extension activity.

Plus, caching the results will save you a lot of money in AI re-generation!  Look into a CDN and Redis to cache your results, and since you already insert a button, it will be trivial for you to show all previous scores in a single call to your content server.

Real life example:  Plagiarism busters that use this tool could benefit from the curiosity of others while increasing their organization and success rate.

[BuckyLucky]

When someone requests an AI detection, the result is NOT viewable by everyone. It does not persist between page loads.

You should look into changing this.   Do you want people to go through the trouble of installing an extension just to check a score?  More likely they will enjoy seeing other scores as well, and it will increase your usage.  It's the same reason I added "Pulsed by..." to the bitcointalk page - people like seeing extension activity.

Plus, caching the results will save you a lot of money in AI re-generation!  Look into a CDN and Redis to cache your results, and since you already insert a button, it will be trivial for you to show all previous scores in a single call to your content server.

Real life example:  Plagiarism busters that use this tool could benefit from the curiosity of others while increasing their organization and success rate.

We already cache our results! But we don't display them yet to everyone. However, we have plans to add this feature soon. Thanks for the feedback

[Mia Chloe]

~snip

I may not be installing this extension even if I find it quite interesting though. Anyways I'll suggest a couple of things to improve the results. You should upgrade the tool to use more AI checkers like quillbot and GPTzero these are very good even if I won't say they are spot on.

These tools need to be as accurate as possible because if a merit source sees a post with a high AI generated likelihood based on the tool if could cause the user getting ignored over time.

[Upgrade00]

I find it somewhat ironic that we are using AI tools to try and determine what content is generated by AI, while AI content generators try to make their output advanced enough to pass off as original.

I understand the skepticism about the accuracy of feedback, if someone is checking a content it should be bacuse to the eye test it already looks to not be original. When you read a post you can almost always accurately tell if there was a human train of thought behind it, if you suspect there wasn't you can then use a tool to get a second opinion. If both your eye test and the detector flag it to be unoriginal, there is a good chance that conclusion is correct.

You should look into changing this.   Do you want people to go through the trouble of installing an extension just to check a score?  More likely they will enjoy seeing other scores as well, and it will increase your usage.  It's the same reason I added "Pulsed by..." to the bitcointalk page - people like seeing extension activity.

I'm split on this, on one hand I feel it could affect how people view the forum especially if the accuracy of feedback is not guaranteed, a lot of false positives can give the wrong image about content posted here but I also feel it can be good to confirm what boards or threads have more of AI spam and if it gets worse the lower you go in a thread or not. Stats that could be useful for some.

[FinneysTrueVision]

Spammers now put more effort in avoiding detection and AI has also gotten better. It is sometimes hard to tell what is AI generated and what is a false positive due to translators using AI to make text sound more natural. This tool is still helpful for finding spammers who use generic prompts to create replies where their replies would look like very obvious AI usage.

In my experience, Winston AI is more reliable than some other tools but it is paywalled, so having a free way to access their results will be really helpful for those that are looking for spammers to report.

[BuckyLucky]

~snip

I may not be installing this extension even if I find it quite interesting though. Anyways I'll suggest a couple of things to improve the results. You should upgrade the tool to use more AI checkers like quillbot and GPTzero these are very good even if I won't say they are spot on.

These tools need to be as accurate as possible because if a merit source sees a post with a high AI generated likelihood based on the tool if could cause the user getting ignored over time.

We do have plans to integrate more AI detectors in the future! Maybe allow the user to switch between them or scan with both detectors and get the average value.

Spammers now put more effort in avoiding detection and AI has also gotten better. It is sometimes hard to tell what is AI generated and what is a false positive due to translators using AI to make text sound more natural. This tool is still helpful for finding spammers who use generic prompts to create replies where their replies would look like very obvious AI usage.

In my experience, Winston AI is more reliable than some other tools but it is paywalled, so having a free way to access their results will be really helpful for those that are looking for spammers to report.

Thank you for your interest in our tool! Winston AI is indeed paywalled, but we still believe it is worth it to integrate the best tools possible.

[PX-Z]

@OP so i tried the userscript, i observe that even if you use the scan feature on your site, yet on the post/reply says "Not Scanned". Is the result is based on browser cache/cookie only? or only when you click the "Not Scanned", i observed it goes back to "Not scanned" again after a refresh.

Also, idk if this was asked already but is the scanning only scan the user post or also the quoted post/replies?

[BuckyLucky]

@OP so i tried the userscript, i observe that even if you use the scan feature on your site, yet on the post/reply says "Not Scanned". Is the result is based on browser cache/cookie only? or only when you click the "Not Scanned", i observed it goes back to "Not scanned" again after a refresh.

Also, idk if this was asked already but is the scanning only scan the user post or also the quoted post/replies?

Thank you for your interest! Yes, the result only appears when you click the scan button, even if it is cached. We are working on a browser cache feature.

We do NOT scan quoted text.

[dkbit98]

Thank you for the feedback. "AI-likelihood: Too short" error appears when the post is less than 300 characters or less than 85 words. We will create a userscript as well so don't worry. It's strange that you can't make it work though, since it works fine on our systems. Did you test in Google Chrome too? (the non firefox version)

Yes, for testing purposes I easily installed your extension in brave browse that is fork of chr0me browser.
I don't like installing many exchanges on my main browser that is based on firefox,so I gave up on trying again.

We also launched a userscript and a web scanner for people who don't like extensions!

Yes, that works very good now, and all browsers can use it.
Like I said before, I think button position should be on the right side, or maybe give option users to choose where they want to have it located.

[BuckyLucky]

Yes, that works very good now, and all browsers can use it.
Like I said before, I think button position should be on the right side, or maybe give option users to choose where they want to have it located.

Perfect! Yes, we will move the button to the right side, it's a bit cleaner. Maybe also add the option to choose
(It's still strange to us that the extension was not working for you)