I found an AI

[xLays]

What is slightly concerning is how it was established that this user is "an AI". If you run any of their posts through the detectors, which is the standard used in the AI Spam Report Reference thread, they come back as not AI generated.

I mean, read the post itself. Does it seem written by AI to you? It barely makes sense and is full of spelling & grammar errors, something AI would never do, unless you asked it to, and I really have doubts that this person is even capable of doing that kind of thing. They just write old fashioned spam, by hand.

We are making the assumption that because the user responded in the way they did, they must be an AI, even if the "instructions" are clearly visible in the quoted post, and none of their posts exhibit signs of being AI-written (not even the one that led to them getting banned). I'm not sure that's very just. But in this particular case, the user was an utter shitposter, so I have no qualms about them getting banned.

It could also work the other way around. I mean like because of that thread, some users may be getting tagged as AI users even when they are not actually using AI. I just feel bad for those users who are being tagged because of that thread.

I tested some posts from reputable members using AI checkers and surprisingly few of their posts were marked as 100% AI generated. This mean that this AI detection tools are not always reliable.

[nutildah]

I tested some posts from reputable members using AI checkers and surprisingly few of their posts were marked as 100% AI generated. This mean that this AI detection tools are not always reliable.

That's true. I notice this usually happens when the text length is too short for the detector to make a proper analysis. The detectors are not always reliable but if 3 detectors all say the same thing, there's a good chance its on to something. If 3 detectors say the same thing about multiple posts, there's an even better chance its on to something. Proclaiming a post to be written by AI because it followed the instructions in the quoted post... I'm not convinced that's an "official" method of detecting AI.

[libert19]

What is slightly concerning is how it was established that this user is "an AI". If you run any of their posts through the detectors, which is the standard used in the AI Spam Report Reference thread, they come back as not AI generated.

I mean, read the post itself. Does it seem written by AI to you? It barely makes sense and is full of spelling & grammar errors, something AI would never do, unless you asked it to, and I really have doubts that this person is even capable of doing that kind of thing. They just write old fashioned spam, by hand.

We are making the assumption that because the user responded in the way they did, they must be an AI, even if the "instructions" are clearly visible in the quoted post, and none of their posts exhibit signs of being AI-written (not even the one that led to them getting banned). I'm not sure that's very just. But in this particular case, the user was an utter shitposter, so I have no qualms about them getting banned.

You know I kind of agree with you, I imagine myself as responding to post with 'hidden instructions' and I just might follow along for laughs, also fwiw I found Ivystar5's response genuine but didn't feel confident enough to voice it out earlier.

[LoyceV]

I tested some posts from reputable members using AI checkers and surprisingly few of their posts were marked as 100% AI generated. This mean that this AI detection tools are not always reliable.

Can you quote a post of mine that shows up as 100% AI? I'm curious

[Negotiation]

I tested some posts from reputable members using AI checkers and surprisingly few of their posts were marked as 100% AI generated. This mean that this AI detection tools are not always reliable.

That's true. I notice this usually happens when the text length is too short for the detector to make a proper analysis. The detectors are not always reliable but if 3 detectors all say the same thing, there's a good chance its on to something. If 3 detectors say the same thing about multiple posts, there's an even better chance its on to something. Proclaiming a post to be written by AI because it followed the instructions in the quoted post... I'm not convinced that's an "official" method of detecting AI.

I completely agree with you that even though many articles are not written by AI, the information generated by AI comes close to it when it comes to interpretation. In my experience, AI tools are not always able to provide accurate information. It is normal that in many cases the main content is the same, However, if you directly copy and paste information generated with AI, then the matter is different.

[xLays]

I tested some posts from reputable members using AI checkers and surprisingly few of their posts were marked as 100% AI generated. This mean that this AI detection tools are not always reliable.

Can you quote a post of mine that shows up as 100% AI? I'm curious

I know you’re very reputable member here in bitcointalk, but I haven’t tried any of your posts.
But since you’re looking for some proof or example: I tried it to some post of JollyGood.

I checked this post using: https://www.zerogpt.com/
https://talkimg.com/images/2026/02/19/Ustufd.jpeg

Whether specific to players from India or elsewhere, if they have had problems for some time did they ever either post about it or put a notice on their website to advise/inform their customers? If they have addressed the issue and are trying to rectify it, that would have been a sign of professionalism. Having said that, I doubt BC Game would have taken the unilateral step to tell their customers they were working to address the issue.

P.S. JollyGood I don’t mean anything that you’re using any AI in your posts. I’m just curious about the way you post. Maybe consider this post as compliment. lol We all know that you hate AI shit poster.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I don't think it is the case of JG but probably some false positives are due to automated online translators using AI nowadays. Google translate uses AI, Deepl.com is integrating AI as well. Those are the two biggest online translators.

[KingsDen]

I don't think it is the case of JG but probably some false positives are due to automated online translators using AI nowadays. Google translate uses AI, Deepl.com is integrating AI as well. Those are the two biggest online translators.

But JG is fluent in English, so he wouldn't be using either of the online translators you mentioned above.

[notocactus]

That's true. I notice this usually happens when the text length is too short for the detector to make a proper analysis. The detectors are not always reliable but if 3 detectors all say the same thing, there's a good chance its on to something. If 3 detectors say the same thing about multiple posts, there's an even better chance its on to something. Proclaiming a post to be written by AI because it followed the instructions in the quoted post... I'm not convinced that's an "official" method of detecting AI.

Spammers are very adaptive for spamming.

It's ok with them if one-lined or two-lined posts are considered as spam, they will be adaptive by making lengthy word-salad posts for non sense discussions.
Then, if we argue them about useless shit word salad posts, they will try to use Ai for achieving lengthy and seems to be informative posts.
If we consider lengthy and informative posts as one of signals of AI-generated posts, they will try to be adaptive again by using AI for post creation, but only trim lengthy given posts by AI to much shorter, very short posts for bypassing AI detective tools.

They are adaptive but with whatever shitpost approaches, their posts are always useless!

Before AI era, they even tried to use lengthy (but non sense) posts for merit exchange, as they think it is more accepted for lengthy posts with received merit.

[libert19]

...I tried it to some post of JollyGood.

I checked this post using: https://www.zerogpt.com/
https://talkimg.com/images/2026/02/19/Ustufd.jpeg

Whether specific to players from India or elsewhere, if they have had problems for some time did they ever either post about it or put a notice on their website to advise/inform their customers? If they have addressed the issue and are trying to rectify it, that would have been a sign of professionalism. Having said that, I doubt BC Game would have taken the unilateral step to tell their customers they were working to address the issue.

P.S. JollyGood I don’t mean anything that you’re using any AI in your posts. I’m just curious about the way you post. Maybe consider this post as compliment. lol We all know that you hate AI shit poster.

Reminds me of this meme, albeit it was based on hypothetical scenario back then but seems like it has become a reality.

[LoyceV]

Can you quote a post of mine that shows up as 100% AI? I'm curious

~ I haven’t tried any of your posts.

When I first checked this post, ZeroGPT thought it's almost completely written by AI. Now ZeroGPT calls it 39.69%.
I'm still curious It's a good check to know how likely false positives are. At least for myself I know for a fact I write and wrote my own texts.

Is it deliberate typos? It's 'ZeroGPT', you wrote as, 'ZeroGTP'.

It shows how little I care My browser just remembers it, but you're right, it's better to use the correct name.

Also, it should be, 'I write my own texts', instead of, 'I wrote my own texts'.

It's both

[libert19]

Can you quote a post of mine that shows up as 100% AI? I'm curious

~ I haven’t tried any of your posts.

When I first checked this post, ZeroGTP thought it's almost completely written by AI. Now ZeroGTP calls it 39.69%.
I'm still curious It's a good check to know how likely false positives are. At least for myself I know for a fact I wrote my own texts.

Is it deliberate typos? It's 'ZeroGPT', you wrote as, 'ZeroGTP'. Also, it should be, 'I write my own texts', instead of, 'I wrote my own texts'.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I don't think it is the case of JG but probably some false positives are due to automated online translators using AI nowadays. Google translate uses AI, Deepl.com is integrating AI as well. Those are the two biggest online translators.

But JG is fluent in English, so he wouldn't be using either of the online translators you mentioned above.

Would you please read before responding?

[joker_josue]

Can you quote a post of mine that shows up as 100% AI? I'm curious

~ I haven’t tried any of your posts.

When I first checked this post, ZeroGPT thought it's almost completely written by AI. Now ZeroGPT calls it 39.69%.
I'm still curious It's a good check to know how likely false positives are. At least for myself I know for a fact I write and wrote my own texts.

AI models write based on the writing styles of humans. They don't create any style of their own
They can repeat themselves, always use the same style or make mistakes without any logic. But they don't invent a style.

Therefore, these text checkers easily give false positives.
Even centuries-old texts have been classified as AI-created...

[Ambatman]

I mean, read the post itself. Does it seem written by AI to you? It barely makes sense and is full of spelling & grammar errors, something AI would never do

I thought same too because it was hard to comprehend what he was even saying
Sad that he hasn't been online after the ban and didn't bother to defend themselves
So maybe there was some element of truth in it.

But they don't invent a style.

Then what style are they using that others can dictate it
I still find it hard to know if a post is Ai generated Now it's sadly entering into differentiating some Ai videos.

[nutildah]

Sad that he hasn't been online after the ban and didn't bother to defend themselves

Actually they did, and tried more valiantly than some:

‎Like I said in my first comment on that thread, I saw @PrimeNumber7 thread, I read through it and also read through the few comments on the threads, but no body followed the instruction and I decided to do so.   Was that my wrong?  because I decided to follow instruction on that topic, that was why I was being accused of using AI and then my account got banned.  
‎
‎It shows how pathetic some of you are on this forum, especially @Loycev, that was the least I expected from an experience member like you, you took a rash action without accessing the situation to confirm if the accusation poured on me is true or not.

It looks like the ban is just a temp ban, so that's good, and they also have a sig ban for 1 year.

Since this was a novel experiment, I don't think we'll have many more instances of accounts being (potentially) unfairly banned for using AI due to this particular reason. But if that's what happened, then yeah, we should try to not do that in the future...