An AI Tool to Correct False Claims About Bitcoin

[Pmalek]

The best way to counter FUD, myth, and false claims about Bitcoin is with facts, data, and evidence from peer-reviewed research. That’s what the Bitcoin Evidence Base does. I came across it on social media yesterday.

The site was created by @MSTR_Norway. It can answer questions and claims about Bitcoin using the FUD-countering model developed by Daniel Batten. 

How to use it?
Open the research tool and ask your question or post a claim. The AI will generate a fact-based response in seconds. You can change tone between direct, balanced, and soft, and even adapt responses to social media platforms like X, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

Evidence database
The database currently contains 115 entries in different categories.

The categories include:
-   Energy & Sustainability
-   Environmental benefits
-   Electricity Prices
-   Adoption
-   E-Waste
-   Debunked studies
-   Common myths
-   Volatility
-   Security & Tech
-   Scaling
-   Decentralization
-   Etc.

Visit the ‘Contribute’ tab to add a topic you believe should be included. Your contribution will go through a fact-checking process before being accepted and added to the database.

What’s the source of the evidence?
Peer-reviewed research from Cambridge University, ERCOT, Human Rights Foundation, and 22+ academic studies.


Sources:
https://facts.bitcoinbeyond66.com/
https://x.com/DSBatten/status/2049868832798335259

[hd49728]

It's an interesting website that can be another one to help debunking Bitcoin fuds and is very helpful for Bitcoin community especially newbies in this market who don't have enough knowledge to know which one is accurate information, and which one is fud.

There are some other websites that can support the site introduced by OP, and together helping newbies learning about fuds and debunking them well.

https://endthefud.org/
https://casebitcoin.com/critiques
https://bitcoincleanup.com/

[Rashlyowl]

Interesting site, although we can actually use other AI, this one is specifically made & curated for BTC only. I've checked it & like the choice of answer tones, there are 3 tones there. Unfortunately only 2 languages ​​are supported at the moment (English & Norsk), I think having more languages ​​would help to make things easier for the local community.

(1) Balanced Tone


(2) Direct Tone


(3) Soft Tone

[Mia Chloe]

~snip

Nice of you sharing this information here but if I'm being realistic if I ever have any doubts or something I probably perceive to be a false claim about bitcoin my first and best bet would be to create a topic about it here and I'm gonna be likely getting one of the best sets of ideas and replies.

I think in most cases newbies that claim to be suffering from the whole FUD stuff are actually the ones that are barely buying or even selling most are all talk on social media platforms like X.

[bitmover]

Wont any AI tool correct any false information?

As far as I know, they wont spread false information (unless of they are hallucinating which all do)
People even use grok to correct any false information o Twitter.

[Ambatman]

I believe this is more on the specialization spectrum
And critics would just argue that it gives what it has been fed
Meaning they won't want to believe
And also people that usually research about FUD accuracy are those that hope it isn't true
Not those that want it to be.

[Alvin_talk]

Not to write this topic off, but a question came through my mind when I read this topic. Why ask AI when I can create a topic here and get answers from real experts in this forum?

Though AI gives correct answers too but I just find it interesting when I get answers here because different individuals have different perspective of reasoning, so you will indeed get more insight, ideas and solution in this forum than you will get from any AI in any subject matter related to bitcoin.

[Lembo69]

Not to write this topic off, but a question came through my mind when I read this topic. Why ask AI when I can create a topic here and get answers from real experts in this forum?

Though AI gives correct answers too but I just find it interesting when I get answers here because different individuals have different perspective of reasoning, so you will indeed get more insight, ideas and solution in this forum than you will get from any AI in any subject matter related to bitcoin.

Yes, your logic is right, if you open a topic in the forum, you will get different arguments from different people. But AI gives you the answer to your question immediately. It explains it step by step in the form of points to make it easier for you to understand. If you ask a question about something you don't understand, it tries to explain it to you with simpler examples. If you open a topic in the forum, it will be more logical because they will answer you from their experience. I just want to remind you that AI is also very useful for us. Because we benefit a lot from AI. We can also learn a lot of unknown information through AI. Again, AI is making our lives easier.

[un_rank]

What’s the source of the evidence?
Peer-reviewed research from Cambridge University, ERCOT, Human Rights Foundation, and 22+ academic studies.

I would not want bitcoin to be treated as an academic topic, if they are going to use sources for their information it should be from bitcoin communities like this one or some other bitcoin related forum. That should be more accurate than academic studies.

I asked about the FUD that bitcoin is too expensive and this was my answer -

Yes, Bitcoin's unit price can seem high at first glance, and that's a common concern for new investors. What many people don't realize is that Bitcoin is infinitely divisible — you don't need to buy a whole bitcoin. You can purchase as little as $1 worth through apps like Cash App, Strike, or Coinbase. Bitcoin can be divided into 100 million smaller units called satoshis (sats). Think of it like buying a fraction of a share of expensive stock like Berkshire Hathaway. The psychological barrier of the unit price doesn't change the underlying investment math. Whether you buy $100 of Bitcoin at $50K per coin or $100K per coin, your percentage gains and losses are identical. Many successful Bitcoin investors started by dollar-cost averaging small amounts weekly or monthly rather than buying large chunks at once.

Bitcoin is very divisible but not infinitely and I also do not like the idea of cash app being the first recommendation of where to buy from. The other parts of the answers are correct and generic, for a software dedicated to correcting FUD, it should be as accurate as possible and should allow for review of answers to make them better.

- Jay -

[Pmalek]

Unfortunately only 2 languages ​​are supported at the moment (English & Norsk), I think having more languages ​​would help to make things easier for the local community.

The creator is from Norway, so that's probably why Norwegian is the second supported language other than English. I am sure there will be more in the future.
I think you misunderstood what the website is supposed to do. It's meant to correct FUD and negative claims about Bitcoin, not for praise and positive comments. Your prompt is therefore not the best one. Entering something like, "Gold is the best financial instrument while Bitcoin is useless" would probably be better. 

Wont any AI tool correct any false information?

As far as I know, they wont spread false information (unless of they are hallucinating which all do)

Depends on the topic being discussed and how it was programmed to respond. Generally it's supposed to give you correct information. Just don't ask it about israel. Shhh

I would not want bitcoin to be treated as an academic topic, if they are going to use sources for their information it should be from bitcoin communities like this one or some other bitcoin related forum. That should be more accurate than academic studies.

What about cases when it's not accurate or when it's incomplete? This forum has some users who are very knowledgeable and know what they are talking about. There are also those who know a bit but not enough. Finally, there are people who have no idea what they are talking about.

I asked about the FUD that bitcoin is too expensive and this was my answer -
...
Bitcoin is very divisible but not infinitely and I also do not like the idea of cash app being the first recommendation of where to buy from.

You can't expect an AI to recommend DEXs and no KYC exchanges that we on this forum know about. You have to understand that we who use such services are still a big minority and not the other way around. Most people will go to Coinbase, Binance, or things like Cash App, Strike, etc.

[Die_empty]

Not to write this topic off, but a question came through my mind when I read this topic. Why ask AI when I can create a topic here and get answers from real experts in this forum?

Though AI gives correct answers too but I just find it interesting when I get answers here because different individuals have different perspective of reasoning, so you will indeed get more insight, ideas and solution in this forum than you will get from any AI in any subject matter related to bitcoin.

It's not wrong to get information from more than one source. You might know the forum but others might not have knowledge of this platform. You should also know that you would have to verify the information you get here because not all of them are correct.

Many platforms promote FUD against Bitcoin, so it's good to see an AI tool dedicated to disputing these false claims. I just contributed by adding a false claim against what is popular in my area. I hope to get the response in a few days.

[Curious T]

Nice of you sharing this information here but if I'm being realistic if I ever have any doubts or something I probably perceive to be a false claim about bitcoin my first and best bet would be to create a topic about it here and I'm gonna be likely getting one of the best sets of ideas and replies.  

I think it also depends on the kind of questions. There are some questions related to Bitcoin I might have that I would just research on my own, while some I would ask here to get a better understanding. I feel it's the same with this AI tool. There are certain things you just need a simple and short explanation for you to understand it, while some require deeper and more experienced answers and from a practical perspective.

Wont any AI tool correct any false information?

An AI tool designed specifically for a task, if built well, would be better than a tool that has general information and has to search the web for answers. And they may not necessarily give a false information, but they can give incomplete information. I haven't tried the one the OP recommended yet though, but I would try it out to see.

[un_rank]

What about cases when it's not accurate or when it's incomplete? This forum has some users who are very knowledgeable and know what they are talking about. There are also those who know a bit but not enough. Finally, there are people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Then I would expect the AI to crawl around and fine the most relevant and accurate answer available from all the available content. That will not be so difficult to do as most of the hot FUD topics have been discussed multiple times here and the most correct answers will stick out more.
A newbie talking about something they have no knowledge on every now and then should not be picked up.

You can't expect an AI to recommend DEXs and no KYC exchanges that we on this forum know about. You have to understand that we who use such services are still a big minority and not the other way around. Most people will go to Coinbase, Binance, or things like Cash App, Strike, etc.

I understand you, but I expect cash app to not be the first recommendation. I can also expect a good balance of the different sources of purchase. It should not just be regurgitating main stream content, that is how most of the FUD gets spread.

- Jay -

[crwth]

There would be biases if the training data contained incorrect information or leaned towards a single opinion. I think there should be some disclosure with it.

Anyway, for me, there should still be human verification that it's correct, with the right citations made by the AI, and it should be able to trace where it got it from. As long as the journal where the data is published is credible, the information can be considered credible.

[Pmalek]

There would be biases if the training data contained incorrect information or leaned towards a single opinion. I think there should be some disclosure with it.

Anyway, for me, there should still be human verification that it's correct, with the right citations made by the AI, and it should be able to trace where it got it from. As long as the journal where the data is published is credible, the information can be considered credible.

I can't vouch for the developer or that authors because I neither know them or have any stake in the project, but I can only assume they approached this the right way. The information on the contribution page, that anyone can add to, says that each claim will be manually checked and verified. I guess they did the same thing with the initial 115 entries added to the database.

If you visit the Evidence Database and browse through the visible claims, you can see a source under each one. There are hyperlinks on some of them that take you to the resource where the topic was discussed.

[3kpk3]

I do like the fact that this tool helps correct such claims, but most people just tend to use the popular AI tools like Chatgpt, Gemini etc which tend to correct such claims pretty well based on what I observed. Is it a scam or not is probably the most searched query.

Also, no tool can clarify any BTC related FUD if the person himself/herself isn't willing to cast aside their negative biases in the first place.

[Pmalek]

Also, no tool can clarify any BTC related FUD if the person himself/herself isn't willing to cast aside their negative biases in the first place.

I agree with that. However, some people may just want to hear the other side of the story. Imagine only hearing one person's narrative all the time. It sticks with you, whether you like it or not. Things like Bitcoin isn't environmentally friendly, it requires more electricity than it's needed to power an entire country, or even claims of Bitcoin having been hacked many times. Stories like that can easily be debunked.

It could be an interesting test to put The Bitcoin Evidence Base against popular AIs like Gemini or ChatGPT to see which tool handles debunking claims the best.

[ABCbits]

I appreciate his effort. I tried it a bit and it seems good enough to correct common wrong/false claim. But as expected, it fails on very specific topic. Here's an example,

But the reality there's no size limit.

Script size limit The maximum script size of 10000 bytes does not apply. Their size is only implicitly bounded by the block weight limit.

What’s the source of the evidence?
Peer-reviewed research from Cambridge University, ERCOT, Human Rights Foundation, and 22+ academic studies.

I would not want bitcoin to be treated as an academic topic, if they are going to use sources for their information it should be from bitcoin communities like this one or some other bitcoin related forum. That should be more accurate than academic studies.

Without some filtering on each post/thread from Bitcoin community, there's no way it's more accurate than academic ones.

[Patikno]

I like the "Evidence Database" section, which provides answers to questions I am interested in, along with source. I think the site is useful for making it easier for people to find answers related to Bitcoin, but I think there needs to be direct links to the sources of information in the "Research Tool". So, by this way, we can verify the information, and find more information related to what we are looking for. I hope the tool continues to be developed to make it even easier, and that the sources of information can be expanded, if possible, to increase the number of references (and further increase knowledge, especially for readers).

[Pmalek]

I appreciate his effort. I tried it a bit and it seems good enough to correct common wrong/false claim. But as expected, it fails on very specific topic. Here's an example,

That's a very specific point and piece of information that is probably not mentioned in any of the sources the bot looks through when analyzing prompts. You could head to the "Contribute" page and suggest to add that important data point.

I think the site is useful for making it easier for people to find answers related to Bitcoin, but I think there needs to be direct links to the sources of information in the "Research Tool". So, by this way, we can verify the information, and find more information related to what we are looking for.

It's weird that they added a 'Sources' tab from where the bot got the information but without including links you can click on. You are right about that.