AI guidelines

[GeorgeJohn]

AI can't be forbidden, we can't check each new post to know if it is AI or not.

You can said that again and again...why you're saying these, it's because their's no enforcement that's specially meant to figure anyone who uses AI in the forum...

If their's a team in exception of the mods, it's when you will know that using of AI can be eradicated in this forum...at least their's a tension in anyone using AI, before theymos brought this rules, AI wanted to take over the forum...

Why the major objectives of the forum communication and interactions, is to bring up your ideas by yourself...now, people are using Al as a tools of making ambiguous sentences and good spelling...

[Yablee0]

Why the major objectives of the forum communication and interactions, is to bring up your ideas by yourself...now, people are using Al as a tools of making ambiguous sentences and good spelling...

You are absolutely correct, it's so sad how some folks want to change the initial purpose of the forum standard to something else, if their will be a team mandated to monitor all ai content on the forum then I believe it will go a long way in taking out all AI shit posters from the platform. However the progress of this forum is a collective obligation and all hands must be on deck to clean off all AI shit posters from the forum.

[Xylber]

Why the major objectives of the forum communication and interactions, is to bring up your ideas by yourself...now, people are using Al as a tools of making ambiguous sentences and good spelling...

Of course nobody wants to enter a forum and end up talking with AIs, but we don't have a system to discover who is using this tool and in which degree they are using it. The closest we have right now is this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.0

These mods would have limited power: only 1 vote to cast. A majority vote would decide a result. Their job would essentially be to review the past 50 posts of said account and cast a vote. The system focuses on the source of the problem and balances fairness by providing a diverse group of mods to eliminate biases.

It could also be some kind of "Merit" system but exclusive for AI.

Instead of adding "+Merit" when you like a post, you'll add "AI-Slop-Merit" if you think it is AI-slop.
Users with too many "AI-Slop-Merit" in the latest X days, get their signature banned until the oldest AI-Slop-Merit expires.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Focus on the problem.

- It is not AI good/bad.
- It is users in this particular forum writting AI slop.

AI can't be forbidden, we can't check each new post to know if it is AI or not.

I agree.

I would also say it doesn’t matter if it’s partly AI. It matters if it’s 100% AI and if it’s considered slop or not.

That’s why I suggested a solution to target habitual shit posters and spammers: a newly created group of moderators which would review accounts that get reported by the community. The community would make reports on spammer accounts, and those reports would alert the newly deployed moderators. Those mods would work almost as a team because they would have to contribute a vote whether or not to warn, mute, temp ban, or permanently ban candidates. These mods would have limited power: only 1 vote to cast. A majority vote would decide a result. Their job would essentially be to review the past 50 posts of said account and cast a vote. The system focuses on the source of the problem and balances fairness by providing a diverse group of mods to eliminate biases.

The moderator position is paid. Who will pay the new moderators who, in your opinion, will be responsible for this job? What's wrong with the current moderators, who are doing a great job and have already learned to distinguish the "wheat from the chaff"?

[DireWolfM14]

As much as I love optimism, I think the amount of it in this thread directed AI is disastrously misplaced.  Some of you seem to think AI will be used to cure disease, while in fact it’s already being used to create them.  Some of you think it’ll be used to solve hunger, while it’s currently being used to find the most effective way to commit a genocide.

To think that Black Rock, the monolithic financial force behind Monsanto and Pfizer wants to put either of those companies out business is naivete at its utmost.  The same monolithic financier behind the majority of AI developers.  No, AI won’t be used to find a cure for cancer.  We already know how to prevent cancer; stop feeding chemicals into your face.  Chemicals purposefully introduce into 99% of the products on the grocery store shelf.  Chemicals specifically designed to keep Pfizer in business.

No, AI won’t be used to solve human problems, it’ll be use to solve the problem of the “wrong kind of humans.”  It’ll be used to keep you fat, lazy, entertained, misinformed, and barely healthy enough to keep paying your bills, but not healthy enough to overthrow the power structure.

[Kazkaz27]

The moderator position is paid. Who will pay the new moderators who, in your opinion, will be responsible for this job? What's wrong with the current moderators, who are doing a great job and have already learned to distinguish the "wheat from the chaff"?

Well, that’s really nice to get paid. Although I offered to contribute for free as a volunteer to the program. No one will pay the volunteers, but perhaps an incentive could be put into place if need be. Something like volunteers having improved odds of becoming a full-time moderator in the future. What’s “wrong” with the current moderation is that they are overwhelmed with such tasks and really can’t keep up with everything, as much as they do a great job. I think if we could get 100 or so volunteers to act as mini-mods with limited power, that could be an asset and advantage to tackling some of these problems we face. It safeguards against individual biases and is a more community-based response.

[Cricktor]

Instead of adding "+Merit" when you like a post, you'll add "AI-Slop-Merit" if you think it is AI-slop.
Users with too many "AI-Slop-Merit" in the latest X days, get their signature banned until the oldest AI-Slop-Merit expires.

Have you thought about the abuse potential of this? Who controls that AI-slop marker points, I'm not willing to call it "merit", are given in a justified manner? Think of competitors who didn't make it into a campaign may start to bully some that are in a campaign. Or have other grudge and feud with each other.


I'd rather prefer an AI policy in this forum where AI generated or even aided content should be clearly labeled and quoted as such. Then anybody else can decide if they want to bother to spend time and read such content or not. This should be mandatory, regardless of the "quality" of the content and treated the same as proper quoting of your sources if you copy/paste content to avoid being punished for plagiarism. I'd be fine with progressive temporary bans (maybe after initial warning?) and prolongued signature bans especially for AI abusing campaigners, stubborn repeaters deserve a permaban.

Worthless AI slop in particular is a waste of time and an insult to intelligence and personality. I don't care if the AI shill-boyz are so fond and happy about this "new technology" that they can't stop wanking their willi over it (for a moment this topic seemed to be derailed a bit with how awesome AI is, well, you do your own judgement).

[Xylber]

Users with too many "AI-Slop-Merit" in the latest X days, get their signature banned until the oldest AI-Slop-Merit expires.

Have you thought about the abuse potential of this? Who controls that AI-slop marker points, I'm not willing to call it "merit", are given in a justified manner? Think of competitors who didn't make it into a campaign may start to bully some that are in a campaign.

Yes, I know. It happened less than a month ago with the current Trust system (user kicked out of his campaign by a supposedly unfair negative tag given by a "jealous enemy").

I'd rather prefer an AI policy in this forum where AI generated or even aided content should be clearly labeled and quoted as such.

We would need a way to identify AI generated content to be able to label it...

[Karl_3000]

I'd rather prefer an AI policy in this forum where AI generated or even aided content should be clearly labeled and quoted as such.

We would need a way to identify AI generated content to be able to label it...

What Cricktor is talking about is that anyone that use AI for a content should clearly state that he used AI. Theymos had talked about this on this thread which should be the proper way of using AI. If not done, such a user supposed to be banned but the punishment against it will be mild according to what was discussed which can be a warning or temporary ban.

[Xylber]

What Cricktor is talking about is that anyone that use AI for a content should clearly state that he used AI. Theymos had talked about this on this thread which should be the proper way of using AI. If not done, such a user supposed to be banned but the punishment against it will be mild according to what was discussed which can be a warning or temporary ban.

Guys, be serious... people spamming the forum with AI to farm merits and posts are NOT going to identify their content as AI-slop...

[Cricktor]

...

Sure, they won't do that. A plagiarist won't announce that they're plagiarising. A scammer won't tell you in advance that they're scamming you. That's why guidelines and rules are important for how to deal with such when detected or what is ok and what isn't.

Will we detect every abuse of AI? Certainly not. But those that get caught, deserve the consequences. So there's some risk for abusers. Will it prevent abuse? Certainly not, maybe a little. Good enough for me.