An AI Tool to Correct False Claims About Bitcoin

[Felicity_Tide]

Overall, I think this tool is actually decent.
What makes an argument/discussion interesting is the availability of facts and evidence to back up your claims, and that's exactly what it tries to do on every prompt. I'm not sure if I'm the only one who noticed it, but there seem to be a weird hourly limit that usually pops up after making 4-5 searches. The reason why I called it weird is that, the moment you exit and reopen the tool, that hourly limit restriction disappears, which then allows you to make 4-5 more searches again before showing the same limit.

And I also found the RESOURCES page of the tool helpful, because it doesn't just explain how it works, but it also explains how people can/should respond to criticism._{(and I guess other users have pointed out the other things i noticed, so I'm gonna have to skip that)}.

[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,

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.

Their website/AI already add all BIP (including BIP 342) to their database, so i believe the actual issue is the AI itself.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one who noticed it, but there seem to be a weird hourly limit that usually pops up after making 4-5 searches. The reason why I called it weird is that, the moment you exit and reopen the tool, that hourly limit restriction disappears, which then allows you to make 4-5 more searches again before showing the same limit.

It's not weird, but rather their limit system doesn't work properly. The limit likely exist because running AI isn't exactly cheap.

[ertil]

What is BIP-433?

BIP-433 doesn't exist in the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal registry. Are you perhaps thinking of a different BIP number? The most recent BIPs are in the 400+ range, but there's no BIP-433. If you're curious about a specific Bitcoin protocol improvement or feature, I'd be happy to help clarify which BIP covers it. What particular aspect of Bitcoin's development were you wondering about?

Meanwhile in BIP repository: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0433.mediawiki

The bot seems to be unaware about anchors, and bc1pfeessrawgf address.

Also, if you try to classically search the web, you will find pages like that: https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/anchor-outputs/

[CryptoYar]

Best part of this is Debunked Studies. Most of the anti-Bitcoin arguments of today rely on the metrics from 2017 that have been shown to be incorrect years ago. The problem is, of course, that this AI won't be kept alive on social media as it is unlikely that the platform algorithms will let it get buried beneath avalanche of FUD that tends to dominate their content. We should be using this tool not for speaking back to anyone but to contribute to and create Information Clusters on other platforms, such as X and LinkedIn, so politician or journalist can issue some false claim, and be immediately confronted with wall of academic evidence other than simply opinions.

[Exitoral]

This is a great tool. Interface speaks more like a general crypto coin colour. This tool will definitely help in unnecessary debate back and front on bitcoin. And the tone switching feature is great too.

I don't know if this will be a limitation to the tool. But what happens to new FUD that is not yet in the database?

[Pmalek]

But what happens to new FUD that is not yet in the database?

As time goes by and Bitcoin proves itself as resilient as we expect it to be, I think there will be less and less FUD being spread by those with ill intentions. There will be fewer and fewer voices willing to hear it. I think the creators of the website will add new entries to the database if the tool becomes popular enough that they deem it worthwhile to continue update and improve it.

[Exitoral]

But what happens to new FUD that is not yet in the database?

As time goes by and Bitcoin proves itself as resilient as we expect it to be, I think there will be less and less FUD being spread by those with ill intentions. There will be fewer and fewer voices willing to hear it. I think the creators of the website will add new entries to the database if the tool becomes popular enough that they deem it worthwhile to continue update and improve it.

If you say so, it's fine. Hope the tool gets it's credibility and becomes popular.

[BlackHatCoiner]

It's actually good. I tested it with many no-coiner arguments, and it answered pretty straight to the point. I have a real complain for the developer, though. It should have a 'bully no-coiner' option that ridiculous the user. I challenge the developer to make it ridicule no-coiners better than I do.

Reading the replies, it appears that the chatbot is not the best at technical questions. I don't think it was designed to answer Taproot or BIP details.

[Pmalek]

I have a real complain for the developer, though. It should have a 'bully no-coiner' option that ridiculous the user. I challenge the developer to make it ridicule no-coiners better than I do.

I am guessing the developers didn't have the intention to create enemies and make people who use the bot feel bad for not knowing the things they ask the AI. Hence, there is no option to ridicule them.

Reading the replies, it appears that the chatbot is not the best at technical questions. I don't think it was designed to answer Taproot or BIP details.

Probably not. The average non-bitcoiner has probably never heard of the term 'BIP' let alone specific BIPs from the registry. I don't think it's any different for 'Taproot' and many other features and terms used in Bitcoin.

[fillippone]

I discovered this tool today, and I wanted to write about it!
I guess it's a very good tool, on a general basis, that can eventually light the curiosity of the "debunked" to understand more.

[snowpega]

<...>

This is really nice of you that you shared such a great, helpful tool with the community.
Thank you for sharing, dear. I have added it to my sheet for future use or to verify any news regarding Bitcoin and its ecosystem. We really know the nature of this matter, that these days, social media is full of fake things, and the majority of the time, fake things stay in place, and no action is taken against such posts.

And in this situation, such kind of tools are really needed and helpful to check the authenticity of the matter. This tool will be more helpful for those who stay more active in the market for seeking opportunities, as they can verify each update on the Bitcoin market using this tool. And in this way, investors and traders will be able to dodge fake pumps and dumps or market traps and manipulation. Thanks again, dear, for sharing this information here.

[qurbanshah02]

Such tools will further improve the development of Bitcoin and this tool that corrects false claims of Bitcoin looks quite good. I have not used it yet but I will use it soon and will extract the best points in it and get benefits. Such more advanced things are very important for us and especially as an investment in Bitcoin because nowadays the demand for Bitcoin has increased a lot and people have been very open to lies for it. Such things should be there to avoid such people so that people do not give their money to the wrong person. People envy Bitcoin so much and the more they hate it, the more it is liked by many, which makes it even stronger. That is why even today Bitcoin is called the king of digital assets, which is true.

[Darker45]

It appears decent. My issue, however, are the sources. What if the FUD, myth, or false claims are coming from peer-reviewed research of prominent universities themselves like Cambridge or Harvard?

This came to mind when I noticed that Cambridge is one of the sources. I remember it's also this elite university that set the wrong benchmark in terms of measuring Bitcoin's carbon footprint. Their false data were being used by other influential institutions and policy-making bodies. Their erroneous computations and math were cited in justifying what later on proved to be too hard or unfair decisions on Bitcoin.

[Pmalek]

What if the FUD, myth, or false claims are coming from peer-reviewed research of prominent universities themselves like Cambridge or Harvard?

Good question.
My guess is that the creators had a reason to add those particular institutions and sources to the database. Each study, research paper, or article used to feed this AI bot was most probably checked beforehand to ensure it isn't FUD itself. They say that they would apply the same method to each new contribution and addition to the site. Therefore, it would be weird if they didn't stick to doing that from the very beginning.

[avp2306]

It appears decent. My issue, however, are the sources. What if the FUD, myth, or false claims are coming from peer-reviewed research of prominent universities themselves like Cambridge or Harvard?

This came to mind when I noticed that Cambridge is one of the sources. I remember it's also this elite university that set the wrong benchmark in terms of measuring Bitcoin's carbon footprint. Their false data were being used by other influential institutions and policy-making bodies. Their erroneous computations and math were cited in justifying what later on proved to be too hard or unfair decisions on Bitcoin.

Those situation will continue to became questionable, because the problem is lots of people blindly trust those institution then believe that what information is true and backed by deep research. The problem is there are some unfair articles they released just like that Bitcoin carbon footprint and its really unfair since their articles have many flaws. Seems they are biased with it and just want to throw some bad shade against Bitcoin.

That's why we should not trust all information released by prestigious schools but rather its good to verify the datas they released so people can fact check it. Those situations is need to be carefully check by Ai bot creators. So they can avoid adding unfair reviews which affect the integrity not only with Bitcoin also with other subjects out there.