AI guidelines

[theymos]

I'm very optimistic about AI on the whole, but its overuse here on the forum risks worsening the signal-to-noise ratio. You're never supposed to be posting "slop" of any kind, whether AI-generated or not. If moderators look at someone's posts and think, "This person is just posting garbage to inflate their post count," then that person should be banned, regardless of the source of the garbage *. But AI makes it much easier and more tempting to post a bunch of slop: at first glance the posts seem high-quality and on-topic, but after reading a few of them they quickly become slop due to their unoriginality, excessive verbosity, and boring samey style. Also, I'm concerned that putting too much unmarked AI-generated text on the forum might confuse AIs which try to train on forum posts, which is undesirable in my book because it makes AI worse/incomplete and it prevents our little corner of humanity from being reflected within AIs. (That's why we don't block or paywall AIs trying to crawl the forum.) Therefore, the main guideline forum users should follow is:

You should not copy/paste text written by an AI into a post, with these exceptions:
 - If you clearly mention that something you're posting is AI-generated, and you only occasionally and appropriately post such AI-generated text, then that's OK.
 - If you have the AI do almost a direct translation of something you wrote, then that's OK. For example, you can tell the AI to "Directly translate this text into Spanish: <something you wrote>" or "Output the following text exactly as-is, except with any clear spelling or grammar mistakes fixed: <something you wrote>". It's not OK to tell an AI, "Improve this text: <something you wrote>", since then it will mostly rewrite it, and it risks becoming AI slop in the process.
 - Non-text AI content such as art is OK (subject to the normal rules).

You can use AI to suggest grammar/style improvements, or to give you ideas, with you manually implementing those suggestions; but avoid directly copying more than a few words from the AI. However, I recommend against ever relying on AI writing advice very much, since mixed in with its good suggestions it'll usually also give bad suggestions which will just erase all personality from your writing. Better your writing be flawed and authentically-you than "correct" but stripped of any soul.

* I acknowledge that not nearly enough people are banned for low-quality posts. The fundamental issue is that we don't want to ban someone just for posting one or two stupid posts, since that's subjective and might just be due to the person having weird opinions or being a poor writer. So to evaluate a user properly, we really want to be reading a sampling of 20-40 of their posts. But doing this sort of evaluation (i.e. reading through hundreds of mediocre-to-bad posts) is really soul-sucking, so nobody wants to do it very much. I'm still thinking about ways to resolve this issue, possibly involving rejiggering how merit works.

[Zaguru12]

Finally the verdict about AI has been dropped, no longer tags about AI but rather moderators can now ban such person. My question is; is the ban going to be temporary or permanent ban like plagiarized posts.


Extra advice to those falling victim of using AI; avoid any paraphrasing tools they all have AI in-built and make your grammar ordinary, you don’t need to over stretch to the general Board if you’re poor in English stick to your local board

[Smartvirus]

Due to the blurry lines between AI generated content and no direct laws to regulate how it’s being used, it was utmost necessary that this comes up at some point and this here was almost an order of the times which would solve a lot of issues.

You can use AI to suggest grammar/style improvements, or to give you ideas, with you manually implementing those suggestions; but avoid directly copying more than a few words from the AI.

This has being the lope hole that has being utilized to throw a lot of AI content on the forum. When someone discovers and makes a remark on the post, you’ll just find the user comes up with “I do my writing myself and have AI arrange and fix in the grammatical errors for me” and just like that, it’s a pass.

That shouldn’t be you know, the idea of suggestion really should apply and that means without any ambiguity, having to study a writing style and get the writing done without having a user highlight an idea to AI and have it develop it into an ambiguous content, that’s so wrong.

[Charles-Tim]

I will also like to know, what if the person quote the AI-generated text? I think I have done this before. Sometimes I also mention that it is AI and quote it. But what if someone just quote it and not mention it is AI-generated?

Finally the verdict about AI has been dropped, no longer tags about AI but rather moderators can now ban such person. My question is; is the ban going to be temporary or permanent ban like plagiarized posts.

I will also like to know if it will be temporary or permanent ban, but with what it is used to qualified above, which is plagiarism, permanent ban will be appropriate.

[nutildah]

Thanks for letting us know what you're actually thinking on the issue. Am largely in agreement and the guidelines make sense. There's an issue with this part:

- If you have the AI do almost a direct translation of something you wrote, then that's OK. For example, you can tell the AI to "Directly translate this text into Spanish: <something you wrote>" or "Output the following text exactly as-is, except with any clear spelling or grammar mistakes fixed: <something you wrote>". It's not OK to tell an AI, "Improve this text: <something you wrote>", since then it will mostly rewrite it, and it risks becoming AI slop in the process.
 - Non-text AI content such as art is OK (subject to the normal rules).

The problem is our current AI detectors cannot distinguish between the nature of or motivation behind the prompt, so AI-translated posts often show up as 100% AI generated, even if the thought behind it was human. Some shitposters know this and this is their first defense for using AI: "I just use it to translate my text." The thing is their posts wouldn't be good even if written in their native language.

This is not always the case; at least a couple of times members with (what I believe are) good intentions got reported and neutral tagged for using AI to translate posts. The clearest way to avoid getting tagged for using AI is to announce you are doing so at the top of the post, but should it always be necessary? I'm leaning toward "yes."

In my experience, AI doesn't actually increase the IQ of a post. A bad post will still be bad even if AI polished or translated.

But doing this sort of evaluation (i.e. reading through hundreds of mediocre-to-bad posts) is really soul-sucking, so nobody wants to do it very much. I'm still thinking about ways to resolve this issue, possibly involving rejiggering how merit works.

I'll do it. I feel like I could be pretty objective about it.

[theymos]

My question is; is the ban going to be temporary or permanent ban like plagiarized posts.

It depends on the person's intent and history. If the person seems to only care about boosting their post-count, then that should typically be a permaban. Otherwise (eg. if it's just a misunderstanding of moderation policy), a warning or temporary ban would be appropriate.

I will also like to know, what if the person quote the AI-generated text?

You should ideally mention that it's AI generated. Maybe like:
[quote=ChatGPT]What an excellent question! ...[/quote]

What an excellent question! ...

The problem is our current AI detectors cannot distinguish between the nature of or motivation behind the prompt, so AI-translated posts often show up as 100% AI generated, even if the thought behind it was human.

I haven't tested it, but I feel like a direct translation should not trigger AI detectors. If it does, we'll just have to use our best judgement. Ultimately, it's about evaluating whether the user is a net-positive or net-negative for the forum (while also keeping fairness in mind).

[SuperBitMan]

- If you clearly mention that something you're posting is AI-generated, and you only occasionally and appropriately post such AI-generated text, then that's OK.

In teams of clearly mentioning that your post was AI generated, if you posted with AI and then you copied the AI link and attached it on your post as source, those it mean you have clearly mentioned that your post was AI generated just by the AI source link that was attached.

[Ambatman]

I haven't tested it, but I feel like a direct translation should not trigger AI detectors.

It does
I just checked it out with this your post

You can use AI to suggest grammar/style improvements, or to give you ideas, with you manually implementing those suggestions; but avoid directly copying more than a few words from the AI. However, I recommend against ever relying on AI writing advice very much, since mixed in with its good suggestions it'll usually also give bad suggestions which will just erase all personality from your writing. Better your writing be flawed and authentically-you than "correct" but stripped of any soul.

I translated the above to Spanish

And it came out as 100% Ai generated.

Maybe adding translated by Ai to the post can help circumvent the dangers of looking at it from an objective POV.
If it gets too frequent or the reason for translating isn't justifiable maybe the price can be implemented.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

I'm very much happy we finally have 3 important guides to address the misused, overused and abuse of the use of A.I for discussion on this distinguish bitcointalk forum since last year, because ever since powerful A.I tools like ChatGPT, Deepseek and Claude all got launched, making content generation very easy with the use of the right prompt and strategy. It's sad some group of members seems to be playing smart by using Copy & paste responds from A.I to be completing post counts, of which such act just makes the forum seems more robotic than natural.

However, I think if the forum can have zero tolerance on the use of A.I just like "plagiarism", it will drastically discourage the multitude of people that are currently using it today to stop, since because of the fear of not wanting to have their accounts get ban, will learn to avoid using A.I. And by so doing, we might have solved 50% of the case of A.I garbage.

[Joy- maker]

You should not copy/paste text written by an AI into a post, with these exceptions:
 - If you clearly mention that something you're posting is AI-generated, and you only occasionally and appropriately post such AI-generated text, then that's OK.

I like the fact that, you finally clear the air on how to make use of Ai in the forum. Here is my own question, let's assume you came across something online or you want to reply to a thread, and you embark on research for more information about the thing. And all the source you came across is not giving you the real information you desire, and you end up asking Ai to provide you with a source, that can get you the informations you seak. And Ai succeeded in getting you one. And after reading through the source and got the information you seak. Can you still use the source as a reference link for further reading in the forum? Because the source link will definitely show that it was gotten from Ai.

[Zoomic]

. It's not OK to tell an AI, "Improve this text: <something you wrote>", since then it will mostly rewrite it, and it risks becoming AI slop in the process.

How will the moderators differentiate a post that was improved by AI and the one written by me and have AI fix the grammar and punctuations since both are going to use same AI writing structure in the end.

[vapourminer]

I will also like to know, what if the person quote the AI-generated text?

You should ideally mention that it's AI generated. Maybe like:
[quote=ChatGPT]What an excellent question! ...[/quote]

What an excellent question! ...

can we get maybe new [AI] [/AI] tags that hide blocks like the code tag? automagically formats a short preview of the AI stuff in the tags, and is scrollable inside the message. so the thread doesnt turn into a scroll wheel wrecking endless AI drivel of garbage.

[Ultegra134]

Finally, there's some official guidance regarding AI usage. After battling with AI usage in the forum for quite long, @nutildah who started the official AI Report thread and the movement against AI usage knows best about how much of a frequent occurance it is. It's mostly from newer members who treat this forum as a gold mine and it's solely an opportunity for them to make money, but also from older accounts who are in for some quick buck, alt/bought accounts etc., you get the point.

As for the translation part @nutildah mentioned, if the person in question wants to avoid being detected as AI, why not use the simplest translation tool of all, Google translate? I don't understand the "need" from some people to translate their posts using AI, it's going to mask many of your errors and polish your text, unless you specify that you don't want that, who's going to do that though?

[Ivystar5]

I will also like to know, what if the person quote the AI-generated text? I think I have done this before. Sometimes I also mention that it is AI and quote it. But what if someone just quote it and not mention it is AI-generated?

I don't know what AI you use frequently or you quote in the forum but however from my experience and AI generated word I think there is always something that says it's AI without you writing it, I can't remember exactly but what I'm talking about is more like the AI image where it writes image generated by exam Grok AI in a little Conner, but when quote I think the quote link should say it's AI but if I'm wrong with the assumption, then maybe just saying it's AI generated won't hurt or change anything regarding what you are posting except you have a different motive.

[logfiles]

I like the fact that, you finally clear the air on how to make use of Ai in the forum. Here is my own question, let's assume you came across something online or you want to reply to a thread, and you embark on research for more information about the thing. And all the source you came across is not giving you the real information you desire, and you end up asking Ai to provide you with a source, that can get you the informations you seak. And Ai succeeded in getting you one. And after reading through the source and got the information you seak. Can you still use the source as a reference link for further reading in the forum? Because the source link will definitely show that it was gotten from Ai.

If you have the actual source link then there is no point citing that you quoted from AI unless if you made AI improve the post. you simply just include the source link

. It's not OK to tell an AI, "Improve this text: <something you wrote>", since then it will mostly rewrite it, and it risks becoming AI slop in the process.

How will the moderators differentiate a post that was improved by AI and the one written by me and have AI fix the grammar and punctuations since both are going to use same AI writing structure in the end.

1. Through reports users submit
2. Trust me, you can tell a direct copy-paste from AI chatbot. The responses are robotic and lack that human factor. Using AI to fix grammar and punctuations may not alter your posts that much

[ColdLava40]

I haven't tested it, but I feel like a direct translation should not trigger AI detectors.

It does
I just checked it out with this your post
I translated the above to Spanish

And it came out as 100% Ai generated.

If it's not an original local language then I think it will be detected as Ai.

If we compare most self written local text on the forum with those translated by Ai, there would be much difference and a local language speaker would notice it.

I agree that such should somehow be quoted as an Ai translation to avoid any issues.

[SamReomo]

1. Through reports users submit
2. Trust me, you can tell a direct copy-paste from AI chatbot. The responses are robotic and lack that human factor. Using AI to fix grammar and punctuations may not alter your posts that much

AI written text is mostly generic and it lacks human emotions, and even if some AI models try to add emotions to the written text, still that's AI like emotion not human emotion. So, directly copy-pasting from AI should be avoided at any cost and now it's not allowed to do such a thing. Even if done, it should be properly mentioned with in quotation so others might not report it.

I believe one should not allow an AI LLM chatbot to fix grammar mistakes or punctuation itself, but should rather ask AI bot to point out mistakes of grammar, spelling, and punctuation that way a person can improve their grammar, spellings, and punctuation overtime and such use of AI is good use of it. AI is getting good at most areas of education and that's why using it with good intent is not bad, but one should use it as a tool.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

I believe one should not allow an AI LLM chatbot to fix grammar mistakes or punctuation itself, but should rather ask AI bot to point out mistakes of grammar, spelling, and punctuation that way a person can improve their grammar, spellings, and punctuation overtime and such use of AI is good use of it. AI is getting good at most areas of education and that's why using it with good intent is not bad, but one should use it as a tool.

They can use AI for learning and improve their written English or they can be simply lazy and dependent on AI for checking and correcting grammar in their posts, I think it's not big issue and won't result in a ban on their account.

The content of post is theirs, and only grammar correction is from AI support, that's just fine.

Your recommendation is good, I agree, as if they can spend time to interact with AI for learning and improve their grammar, it's better for their own written English but if they don't do that, they won't be banned here if the post content is from their own mind.

[philipma1957]

This should be fun.

I ALWAYS DO WONDER WHAT IF I WRITE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE IS AI

I write so many freaking posts and I mostly do it in James Joyce stream of continuous [spelled that wrong]


My fear is that I do know how to write with really proper grammar in an uptight stuffy style of writing,  I just chose Jame Joyce since I had

My military related psychotic break in 1982 I found it more important to write down the thoughts and print them without torulhy [spelled wrong] correcting them.

If any one wants to hire me to review English text for ai I will do so.

At theymos good work.

[Vod]

For a person who posts with intent, AI will not be an issue.

I use it to copy/paste a bullet set of reasons to support my position - but I make sure I built that position myself.  I'm never going to apologize for using AI as an aid, but I will still reject using it to cheat.