Bitcointalk’s AI Divide: Unleash Mini-Mods to Slay Spam Plague and Crush Censorship Tyranny! 🤖
So
Our Community is Divided. Although the majority of users here utilize AI and consider it a friend, an almost equal number of members have deemed it an enemy of the forum, according to a recent community
POLL. The technology itself is promising and not problematic. What is problematic is spam or low-quality posts, which users create and spread like a deadly plague all over the forum. AI is simply a tool these users choose to use in order to flood the platform.
What we can agree on is that low-quality content clogs up the forum. Spam is awful and should be removed.
AI itself is not inherently bad, and using it to create something is not inherently wrong either. What is wrong is using AI without disclosure.
It should become standard practice for users to highlight content generated or partly generated by AI in order to alleviate concerns from other users that it’s disingenuous, misleading, or soulless. This cuts back on AI-generated spam because users can’t pass AI-generated content off as their own. Just like a scammer does not come out and say, “Hey everyone, I am a scammer,” a spammer will likely not disclose that his posts are AI-generated or enhanced.
AI-enhanced posts should never be 100% AI. For qualified AI usage, it should have a human element and carry the message that the human component advocates. It should be reviewed, approved, and tagged as AI-enhanced by the user who publishes it. Furthermore, if some information in an AI-generated post is not complete or factual, a disclaimer highlighting that the information is in fact not 100% accurate or up to date should be implemented and the information should be viewed more as an outline versus pure factual data.
The point of this is to avoid forum censorship related to the legitimate utilization of AI content, and also to prevent being left in the Stone Age as AI takes over the world by storm.
The solution is not the eradication of AI-enhanced content or complete censorship of those who utilize it.
The solution is to target habitual “shit-posters.”
Introducing a community-based response which can lighten the workload for main moderators: Mini-Mods!Mini-mods are basically self-explanatory, although there are a couple of distinct differences and roles they would play if introduced into the forum.
Mini-Mods in practice have limited power compared to standard moderators. Mini-Mods have a direct task to evaluate habitual spammers, which are received by them through community reports. Reports from the community regarding spam would essentially go to a queue. Mini-Mods would take users from that queue and evaluate the past 50 posts of a qualified participant. To become qualified for the mini-mods queue, a user has to have at least 5 posts reported as spam. This elevates one-off spam reports and prevents exponential growth of users in the queue. The special function mini-mods have is to cast a vote together to determine the fate of a qualified candidate in the queue. The vote options would be warning, temporary mute, temporary signature ban, temporary banishment, or permanent ban. The diverse nature of mini-mods would ensure that biases against members would be kept in check.
Here are a few Questions I challenge the community to answer & think members should consider:
Would you volunteer for this community-based solution to improve the community’s experience? If so, drop your username like this: “@Kazkaz27 Mini-Mod Volunteer.”
Does this type of approach help eliminate biases, or is there a better, more fair approach?
Does a strict ban on AI-related content censor how users choose to interact and contribute to the community?
Is AI-enhanced topics or posts really the issue at hand, or is it the users that use it in bad faith to create spam?
Poll
