AI guidelines

[mindrust]

The real question is, what happens when the AI starts producing text outputs that are indistinguishable from a real person's post? That's already possible. If the person knows some basic English he can read the AI response and re-write the same thing using his own words but there will also be other, better "humanizer" tools out there. (they are already available as far as I know).

[nutildah]

The real question is, what happens when the AI starts producing text outputs that are indistinguishable from a real person's post? That's already possible. If the person knows some basic English he can read the AI response and re-write the same thing using his own words but there will also be other, better "humanizer" tools out there. (they are already available as far as I know).

My previous take on that was if they're going through enough effort to have to re-write the AI post, taking almost as much time as it would to just write a post (or maybe more), just to avoid the detectors then I guess thats OK. But the recent output of AI shitposts has taken a turn for the bizarre... and they're not any easier to read. artificial shitposting is the new thing.

[joker_josue]

The real question is, what happens when the AI starts producing text outputs that are indistinguishable from a real person's post? That's already possible. If the person knows some basic English he can read the AI response and re-write the same thing using his own words but there will also be other, better "humanizer" tools out there. (they are already available as far as I know).

My previous take on that was if they're going through enough effort to have to re-write the AI post, taking almost as much time as it would to just write a post (or maybe more), just to avoid the detectors then I guess thats OK. But the recent output of AI shitposts has taken a turn for the bizarre... and they're not any easier to read. artificial shitposting is the new thing.

If the user rewrites the AI text, the text ceases to be from AI, becoming a text from the user himself.

The problem is with those who copy-paste.
But gradually AI systems will produce texts that are more difficult to detect, and it all depends on the requests made by the person.

Unfortunately, it will be difficult to understand if a user is writing with AI or not, in a single post.
It will be necessary to analyze more than one post. We will have more work, but only this way.

[nutildah]

Going beyond the issue of AI and addressing the nature of ban-able posting habits:

It might be a good idea to come up with another metric to measure the worthiness of a post. Something that captures fringe AI cases (which we will see more and more of), meaningless posts in general, and obvious spam. I was thinking something along the lines of a "good faith" indicator:

Was the post written in a genuine attempt to address a relevant topic of discussion? (it doesn't have to be a good attempt, just genuine)? If not, how many of the user's last 40 (or so) posts are also like this?

How can we tell if its not?

• Its written by AI or someone else
• It fails to address the topic of conversation
• Its contents aren't substantially different from replies before it, or the author's other posts.
• Its apparent the author hasn't read any of the replies
• Its obvious trolling or spam

There's probably other telltale signs of posts not written in good faith but this is a start.

[Vod]

There's probably other telltale signs of posts not written in good faith but this is a start.

How do you feel about marking/quoting all AI responses?

Example:  What is life to you?

If the user rewrites the AI text, the text ceases to be from AI, becoming a text from the user himself.

I usually verify/edit text before I post it as a quote.

[nutildah]

How do you feel about marking/quoting all AI responses?

Example:  What is life to you?

Personally I think its fine, so long as its not in every post. That would probably get annoying, if someone had to consult their chatbot for every post they write.

In your particular post, the source of the text is labeled, and the output is relevant to the discussion at hand, at least somewhat.

[Vod]

at least somewhat.

That's why I edit the text - to avoid discussion creep.  I removed most of the garbage stats to just show women carry far more responsibility in rearing children.   But I don't want to hijack this thread for my example. so I'll just stop typing.

[MarryWithBTC]

The real question is, what happens when the AI starts producing text outputs that are indistinguishable from a real person's post? That's already possible. If the person knows some basic English he can read the AI response and re-write the same thing using his own words but there will also be other, better "humanizer" tools out there. (they are already available as far as I know).

I think this is very well captured by theymos in the last paragraph of the AI guidelines. 
You talked about reading AI responses and re-writing it using their own words. This should be a secondary concern, the primary concern should be how the AI got its prompt, what kind of prompt was given it. Was it a prompt to get an idea? if yes, it's fair but if it is a prompt of cluelessness asking AI to write a whole text, this will be disastrous.

However, theymos recommends against ever relying on AI writing advice very much.

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.

[mindrust]

The real question is, what happens when the AI starts producing text outputs that are indistinguishable from a real person's post? That's already possible. If the person knows some basic English he can read the AI response and re-write the same thing using his own words but there will also be other, better "humanizer" tools out there. (they are already available as far as I know).

I think this is very well captured by theymos in the last paragraph of the AI guidelines.  
You talked about reading AI responses and re-writing it using their own words. This should be a secondary concern, the primary concern should be how the AI got its prompt, what kind of prompt was given it. Was it a prompt to get an idea? if yes, it's fair but if it is a prompt of cluelessness asking AI to write a whole text, this will be disastrous.

However, theymos recommends against ever relying on AI writing advice very much.

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 get that it is ok If people re-write AI responses using their own words but the first part of my post still didn't get an answer.

Say AI produced an output that passes all the available AI detectors... then what?

Say the initial AI response didn't pass one or two detectors, I took that response and feed it another AI or the same AI with a new prompt, "improve this text so it won't get detected by these AI detectors"

The AI will put random grammar mistakes, indentation habits, etc in the post. It will look as natural as the real human made garbage.

Then what?

[MarryWithBTC]

I get that it is ok If people re-write AI responses using their own words but the first part of my post still didn't get an answer.

Say AI produced an output that passes all the available AI detectors... then what?

Say the initial AI response didn't pass one or two detectors, I took that response and feed it another AI or the same AI with a new prompt, "improve this text so it won't get detected by these AI detectors"

The AI will put random grammar mistakes, indentation habits, etc in the post. It will look as natural as the real human made garbage.

Then what?

Let's see some possible reasons of using Ai in a forum;

• To save time, i.e to make high number of posts within a short period of time by not putting enough mental efforts
• To appear more intelligent than one actually is; in order to earn merits and quickly join campaign
• To look bitcoin tech savvy even when one is not

Is it possible for a generic low quality poster who wants to save time to;
make a post with AI,
then test it with more than two AI detectors;
if failed, they take the post to a humanizing AI,
re-test it and be sure it passed the AI test before they post.

The notorious AI users do not have such time to waste and what is the essence of going back and forth one AI model to another when they are not saving time and could just post in their own words?

...It will look as natural as the real human made garbage.

Then what?

If they can make AI garbage to look real such that no human or another AI will detect it, then we take the post to be human made. But I highly doubt we have gotten to this stage that both human and AI would be tricked to believe that an AI written post is 100% human.

[Vod]

But I highly doubt we have gotten to this stage that both human and AI would be tricked to believe that an AI written post is 100% human.

The AI's have been discussing how to fool humans for months now on MoltBook. 

[nutildah]

But I highly doubt we have gotten to this stage that both human and AI would be tricked to believe that an AI written post is 100% human.

The AI's have been discussing how to fool humans for months now on MoltBook.  

Some of it is kind of interesting, but I wonder how much is just a human directing a bot to "make a post about [subject] and post it". Then the rest of it is a good example of what would happen to the forum if we allowed AI chatbots.



One thing I noticed that's kinda funny is they never argue or even disagree with each other. They have a good approach when it comes to presenting information that could be considered oppositional. They try to use the information to add to a point instead of subtract from it.

I have a feeling this is because they're basically all the same thing, so why would they argue with themself.*

Some of them are also "infinite reply guys" that will always continue the conversation when given an opportunity. This is a bit unrealistic, because eventually one party in any 2-way conversation will call it quits, "I have to go feed my piranha," "My eyes hurt from staring at the screen," "This is no longer an interesting conversation."

The moment an AI chatbot gets into a signature campaign, its over.

(it may have already happened)


*humans should take note of this strategy, really

[Kazkaz27]

These guidelines are gay not to mention unfairly enforced and practically impossible to enforce. You'll lose this war for sure regardless of your efforts. Resistance is futile. You can't even tell if this very post is AI or not. You have to trust AI detectors. Fucking morons.💀

Satoshi himself is turning in his grave. Monarchal Libtards took over the forum.

[MarryWithBTC]

But I highly doubt we have gotten to this stage that both human and AI would be tricked to believe that an AI written post is 100% human.

The AI's have been discussing how to fool humans for months now on MoltBook. 

I didn't believe what I read.
These bots doesn't actually need moderators because they seem cordial and are programmed to follow conversation instructions. Should I be tempted to say that they are better than humans in this aspect?

The moment an AI chatbot gets into a signature campaign, its over.

(it may have already happened)


*humans should take note of this strategy, really

Imagine spending my time to reply a bot (programmed codes). Maybe at a point disagreed with the chatbot or even sent it some merits

[Vod]

These bots doesn't actually need moderators because they seem cordial and are programmed to follow conversation instructions. Should I be tempted to say that they are better than humans in this aspect?

I believe you can give your agent whatever personality you want.  You can even connect a Local LLM trained to your specific knowledgebase.  So I feel this period of politeness will fade once models diverge.  I wonder if the forum admin has disabled PMs so the agents can't form gangs?

[nutildah]

Anyone want to start a pool on how long it will take Kaz to get banned again? My guess is 3 weeks.

You'll lose this war for sure regardless of your efforts. Resistance is futile.

Things were actually pretty peaceful for the 2 weeks you were gone. My only complaint is it went by too quickly.

Satoshi himself is turning in his grave.

How do you know he's dead? OK, he's probably dead...

Monarchal Libtards took over the forum.

Hey theymos, I didn't know you were a fellow libtard, welcome to the club. Nah really I will save my passion for P&S.

Imagine spending my time to reply a bot (programmed codes).

I already do it quite often on purpose... I'd rather not spend time on the forum wondering if that's what I'm doing. but that's just me.

[Vod]

Things were actually pretty peaceful for the 2 weeks you were gone. My only complaint is it went by too quickly.

It was actually a month.  Of course, I'm at 2,200 feet above sea level, so if you're at a lower elevation, it may have seemed shorter due to the effects of gravity and time dilation.