MORE DISAPOINMENT for nutildah

[More Disapoinment]

Disappointing to see one of the worst AI posters of all-time recently accepted to a signature campaign, even after 3 neutral tags on their account emphasizing how terrible their post quality is. I have issued this user a 360-day sigban.

I saw nutildah rant about worst spammers on earth just got into a signature campaign even after received so many tag. I realized I only use like 10% of my ChatGPT subscription this week, so I figured why not use it since I already pay for it? the AI look for more cases like that. but the results isn't as good as I hoped, so I also manually check and filter obviously wrong case.

Basically I prompt it to look AI Spam Report Thread and filter based on AI poster is in signature campaign and not in banned list and not in sigbanned list. Turns out, at least 21 user (or maybe all of them belong to farmer) just chilling, sitting in live campaigns, and farming money. To nutildah, stop say being disapointed, just sigban all of them. your being too merciful. Here's the result (ChatGPT result that I filtered manually)


Rainbet [OFNP] — 5 tier-1 accounts
campaign thread

user: fredericktaylor
campaign evidence: sheet row 70 in tab Round 95
link to accusation post: link 1, 2, 3
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 1
my score: 4/5, so obvious. certain legendary would say 'from the usual local board'

user: Donneski
campaign evidence: sheet row 67 in tab Round 95
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 1
my score: 4.5/5, word salad post

user: Humblevirus
campaign evidence: sheet row 104 in tab Round 95
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 1
my score: 4/5, glut of text

user: Mr_Brilliant$
campaign evidence: sheet row 55 in tab Round 95
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 1
my score: 3.5/5, mid post

user: programmer3666
campaign evidence: sheet row 114 in tab Round 95
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 1
my score: 3.5/5, another mid post

WeLive Crypto [OFNP] — 1 tier-1 accounts
campaign thread

user: Sg4j1n3ll0
campaign evidence: sheet row 21 in tab W11; 2 posts in the campaign thread
link to accusation post: link 1, 2
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 2
my score: 3.5/5, yet another mid post

Bitvest.io [CFNP] — 2 tier-1 accounts
campaign thread

user: Mehmet69
campaign evidence: sheet row 30 in tab W11; 4 posts in the campaign thread
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 1
my score: 4.5/5, WTF 10 sentence in one paragraph

user: Sarah Jordan
campaign evidence: sheet row 38 in tab  Week 005; 2 posts in the campaign thread
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 2
my score: 4/5, nothingburget string

Bitz.io(LM) [CFNP] — 1 tier-1 account
campaign thread

user: abhiseshakana
campaign evidence: sheet row 11 in tab W45; 3 posts in the campaign thread
link to accusation post: link 1, 2, 3
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 1
my score: 4.5/5, what a tragic downfall

Dustbit.com [CFNP] — 1 tier-1 account
campaign thread

user: yudi09
campaign evidence: sheet row 8 in tab Round 23; 2 posts in the campaign thread
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 2
my score: 3.5/5, L post

Rollbit.io [CFNP] — 1 tier-1 account

user: OsaiEmma
campaign evidence: red carpet welcome
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 2
my score: 4.5/5 technobabble shit

Earnbet.io [CFNP] — 1 tier-1 account
campaign thread

user: cryptoaddictchie
campaign evidence: sheet row 9 in tab W56; 1 post in the campaign thread
link to accusation post: link 1, 2, 3
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 2
my score: 4/5 nothingburger

Not in campaign yet

the AI mistakenly said they are in campaign, so I moved it here.

user: casey15
link to accusation post: link 1, 2, 3
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 1
my score: 4/5, another from you know the local board

user: Fragrance1122
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 2
my score: 3.5/5 same old mid post

user: jasonjm
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 2
my score: 3.5/5, so-so post

user: ObeyKnock
campaign evidence: 1 post in the campaign thread
link to accusation post: link 1, 2, 3
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 1
my score: 3.5/5, one more mid post

user: malekbaba
campaign evidence: 1 post in the campaign thread
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 3
score by AI 1: 5 | score by AI 2: 5 | my score: 4/5, retro one line spam

user: TopT3ns
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 3
my score: 4/5, pretending to know about gambling

user: Publictalk792
link to accusation post: link 1, 2, 3
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 3
my score: 5/5, someone actually get 7 NEGATIVE feedback

user: johnsaributua
link to accusation post: link 1
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 1
my score: 4.5/5 wall of text, try hard apply on all campaign

user: seoincorporation
link to accusation post: link 1, 2, 3
spam-worded trust feedback from trusted members: 1
my score: 3/5 nice story bro, totally real

[decodx]

As far as I can see, half these reports are years old... have you considered that the individuals in question might have improved in the meantime, after receiving a warning tag? I'm sure most of these campaign managers actually know what they're doing and vet all the candidates before bringing anyone on. So unless you've got actual proof a specific user is actively spamming right now, what's even the point of this thread?

By the way, why a brand-new account for this? You are afraid to discuss this with your main account?

[casey15]

I have nothing to say to you actually... Keep agending whatever agenda you are trying to agenda. But then I have a total of 521 posts on the forum and as much as you are pushing a narrative of AI spamming I would like to know across all my posts how many of them can you confidently point out to be AI written with evidence let's say for the past 120days.....I've tried to stay on my own but you guys keep looking for things to push. Because someone writes so well does not mean their posts are AI generated... While AI can be used for assistance, that doesn't mean that the post is AI generated.... Because right now everyone is trying to feel important and feel big by downplaying the effort of other users
I'll leave you at that and wont say anything more to you

[More Disapoinment]

As far as I can see, half these reports are years old... have you considered that the individuals in question might have improved in the meantime, after receiving a warning tag? I'm sure most of these campaign managers actually know what they're doing and vet all the candidates before bringing anyone on. So unless you've got actual proof a specific user is actively spamming right now, what's even the point of this thread?

By the way, why a brand-new account for this? You are afraid to discuss this with your main account?

So much assumption, WOWW. I always read their shitpost on last 2 page before giving score. Or maybe check their shitpost??? 13 sentence in one paragraph.

AC Milan beat Inter Milan 3-1 in Serie A, they performed very strongly in that match, but what happened to them in today's match? AC Milan can't survive at home against Ferencvárosi, so far they have only 1 shot on target, and they are already 2-0 down, a very good performance was expected from them in this match, at least considering their last match, but today they are in a very bad condition, AC Milan will not be able to win this match, it is very disappointing, they should have won this match. And Bournemouth is now ahead against Sparta Praha, if Sparta Praha had not received a red card in the 37th minute, the result of the match could have been a draw, because Sparta Praha performed very well and the first goal was scored by Sparta Praha.

For quote some time now, I’ve being avoiding having to favour AC Milan in my betslips. I always tend to lean towards betting against them than favouring their side. After their performance over the weekend against one of the best sides in the Serie A, where they happened to have won against Inter Milan in a 3:2 convincing defeat, which is an extension on how they’ve performed for some time now, I thought just maybe, maybe they would continue their winning streak with this Europa fixture but, I see now that I was mistaken.
Like, how are these guys loosing this badly in a game that should have being a work over. It’s just pathetic and my parlay is gone.

I also had a multi but all my happiness was ruined because of today's last match. It is unimaginable that a big-name team like AC Milan will perform so badly. Especially when they beat a team like Inter Milan by 3 goals, it means they are in very good form. My almost winning multi ended like this. In my opinion, we can blame the change in the XI as the reason for losing today's match. There were 6 new players in today's XI compared to the previous match. It is natural that so many changes will ruin the continuity of the team's previous performance. Because in football, it is very important to create a good understanding between the players. The kind of team performance they had against Inter Milan was not seen in today's match. Those who play together regularly usually have a good understanding on the field. But if there are many changes at once, it can be difficult to maintain that rhythm. So after the win against Inter, today's poor performance was due to this change in the XI. This poor performance was a very sad experience for me.

I have nothing to say to you actually... Keep agending whatever agenda you are trying to agenda. But then I have a total of 521 posts on the forum and as much as you are pushing a narrative of AI spamming I would like to know across all my posts how many of them can you confidently point out to be AI written with evidence let's say for the past 120days.....I've tried to stay on my own but you guys keep looking for things to push. Because someone writes so well does not mean their posts are AI generated... While AI can be used for assistance, that doesn't mean that the post is AI generated.... Because right now everyone is trying to feel important and feel big by downplaying the effort of other users
I'll leave you at that and wont say anything more to you

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66711424#msg66711424 LOL

[stompix]

I've tried to stay on my own but you guys keep looking for things to push. Because someone writes so well does not mean their posts are AI generated...

Wait a moment, let me get this right..
Did you just call your 4 lines of nonsense academic material too good to be understood by us plebs ?

By the way, why a brand-new account for this? You are afraid to discuss this with your main account?

Because Theymos said it's OK to do it and the rank of the account saying something should not cloud the judgment on the issue. "Don't shoot the messenger"!

Also, who the fuck still cares that it's a new account? Does this invalidate the accusations? Do we need KYC and a sperm sample verified and tasted by Bonnie Blue before posting here?
This is a deja vu from the other topic created a few weeks ago, eveyone was accusing the op because he was a newbie and had a hidden agenda and when Nutildah came and said the list is indeed disturbing, we saw an 180% swing!

If the list is bullshit, analyze the list and point the flaws in it, don't attack the poster, attack the material.

[Vod]

By the way, why a brand-new account for this? You are afraid to discuss this with your main account?

So much assumption, WOWW. I always read their shitpost on last 2 page before giving score. Or maybe check their shitpost??? 13 sentence in one paragraph.

It actually shows you are a brand new account in your profile, so how do you define assumption?  A word used to troll?

[decodx]

By the way, why a brand-new account for this? You are afraid to discuss this with your main account?

Because Theymos said it's OK to do it and the rank of the account saying something should not cloud the judgment on the issue. "Don't shoot the messenger"!

I'm not shooting anyone! I just asked if he's afraid of something, given that he isn't participating in the discussion using his main account. Surely you're aware that many such cases have ulterior motives behind them.

Also, who the fuck still cares that it's a new account? Does this invalidate the accusations? Do we need KYC and a sperm sample verified and tasted by Bonnie Blue before posting here?
This is a deja vu from the other topic created a few weeks ago, eveyone was accusing the op because he was a newbie and had a hidden agenda and when Nutildah came and said the list is indeed disturbing, we saw an 180% swing!

I care. It doesn't invalidate the accusations, per se, but I give it higher priority when it comes from a "senior" forum member. That's the whole point of forum ranks. It's one thing to express your political or other beliefs while wishing to remain anonymous, but it's another thing entirely to accuse fellow members of spamming while hiding behind a "newbie" account.  A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

If the list is bullshit, analyze the list and point the flaws in it, don't attack the poster, attack the material.

If you read my comment again, you'll see that I did, in fact, attack the material - or rather, the lack thereof. I'm not defending anyone here, but I believe it's up to the accuser to provide evidence for their claims, rather than just dumping an AI-generated list of members and expecting others to do the work for them.

[PrivacyG]

I'm not shooting anyone! I just asked if he's afraid of something, given that he isn't participating in the discussion using his main account. Surely you're aware that many such cases have ulterior motives behind them.

Some people do not want any drama attached to their name and reputation but still have things they want to get off their own chest.

I care. It doesn't invalidate the accusations, per se, but I give it higher priority when it comes from a "senior" forum member. That's the whole point of forum ranks. It's one thing to express your political or other beliefs while wishing to remain anonymous, but it's another thing entirely to accuse fellow members of spamming while hiding behind a "newbie" account.  A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

It is not really hypocritical.  Do you believe OP is a spammer hiding and throwing darts at others?  What do you prefer, two silent thieves or two thieves exposing each other?  If any thing, Bitcoin Talk may be a better place if spammers and shit posters exposed and accused each other for the rest of us to see!

I just came from another Topic where some body mentioned the existence of Guest posts in the past.  Hell.  Some times I really wish we still had those.  It would be a lot less controversial than creating a new 'disposable' alternative account particularly for such things.

[stompix]

I'm not shooting anyone!  Surely you're aware that many such cases have ulterior motives behind them.

Oh for fucking god's sake!
You're not shooting him, but you're pointing at him as having an ulterior motive.

It doesn't invalidate the accusations, per se, but I give it higher priority when it comes from a "senior" forum member.

Good, reminder to never trust your judgment ever because you think ranks are more important than data.

That's the whole point of forum ranks.

Nope, it's not!

If you read my comment again, you'll see that I did, in fact, attack the material - or rather, the lack thereof.

No, you didn't, and you know it, it's called superficiality, and you're excelling at it!
So let's make a test:

Why is casey15 not a sorry ass spammer and why should he not be banned?
Oh, and look, this is an accusation coming of a legendary member with 7 times your merit, so based on your already fucked up priciples of rank caste system where you care more about the rank of the one saying something than what he is saying this accusation must spin all the earth around twice and flip it thrice.

[nullius]

By the way, why a brand-new account for this? You are afraid to discuss this with your main account?

Because Theymos said it's OK to do it and the rank of the account saying something should not cloud the judgment on the issue. "Don't shoot the messenger"!

I recently had cause to review the history of the biggest sex scandal in forum history.  The scandalous part was a scam accusation, which was raised by a Brand New alt.  At the start, they were hostile and accusatory to me—as if I may be knowingly involved in the scam.

At first, of course, I wondered if they may be trolling—but if I’d totally dismissed them on grounds of “not your main account”, then no matter how innocent I actually was, it could’ve gone badly for me as the evidence piled up against the scammer.  Instead, I looked carefully to the evidence.  Tons of evidence—some of which I discovered myself.

After a long public discussion, the accuser eventually agreed that I was innocent, and even apologized very nicely to me (restricted Investigations link).  The scammer wound up banned for ban evasion.

(Cf. the “focus on the content” advice in this bitcoin-dev post; h/t athanred in a different restricted thread for finding that based on my vague description.)

[W]ho the fuck still cares that it's a new account? Does this invalidate the accusations? [...]

If the list is bullshit, analyze the list and point the flaws in it, don't attack the poster, attack the material.

I started to try to apply my own suggestion of Wikipedia’s standards.  Thus far, my only conclusions are that (a) my eyeballs are about to bleed from a surfeit of poorly-written text, and (b) I fear suffering brain damage long before I have enough experience to pass judgment per Wikipedia’s guidelines.

I have nothing to say to you actually... Keep agending whatever agenda you are trying to agenda. But then I have a total of 521 posts on the forum and as much as you are pushing a narrative of AI spamming I would like to know across all my posts how many of them can you confidently point out to be AI written with evidence let's say for the past 120days.....I've tried to stay on my own but you guys keep looking for things to push. Because someone writes so well does not mean their posts are AI generated... While AI can be used for assistance, that doesn't mean that the post is AI generated.... Because right now everyone is trying to feel important and feel big by downplaying the effort of other users
I'll leave you at that and wont say anything more to you

^^^ Eyeball-bleed.  Who says you “write so well”?  Perhaps I may be sympathetic to that argument, if you did—but the above quote is gibberish.  “Keep agending whatever agenda you are trying to agenda”?

Your reply here strikes me as different in writing style, formatting, tone, and (un)grammatical self-(in)consistency compared to the three quoted posts in the accusation—some of which look inconsistent with each other, to my eye.

[...] A lot of people mix up the risk of investing in Bitcoin with the risk of protecting  their Bitcoin and both are completely different. [...]

Whether or not it’s slop (the accusation reports that three automated detectors say it is), doesn’t Rule #1 apply?

I just came from another Topic where some body mentioned the existence of Guest posts in the past.  Hell.  Some times I really wish we still had those.  It would be a lot less controversial than creating a new 'disposable' alternative account particularly for such things.

OT:  I used to think that way—and I do value some of the old anonymous posts here.  But having now observed more of how discourse develops in a venue that allows anonymous posts, I think that it’s important to have people take a pseudonym—even if only for the duration of a single thread.  It makes the discussion easier to follow, and it cuts off some troll tactics.

That's the whole point of forum ranks.

Nope, it's not!

The whole point of forum ranks is (a) to impress newbies who don’t know any better, (b) to obtain the privilege of a pretty signature and a pretty avatar.

[More Disapoinment]

By the way, why a brand-new account for this? You are afraid to discuss this with your main account?

So much assumption, WOWW. I always read their shitpost on last 2 page before giving score. Or maybe check their shitpost??? 13 sentence in one paragraph.

It actually shows you are a brand new account in your profile, so how do you define assumption?  A word used to troll?

Read my reply again. I was responding to his first point, not his latest.

As far as I can see, half these reports are years old... have you considered that the individuals in question might have improved in the meantime, after receiving a warning tag?

If the list is bullshit, analyze the list and point the flaws in it, don't attack the poster, attack the material.

If you read my comment again, you'll see that I did, in fact, attack the material - or rather, the lack thereof. I'm not defending anyone here, but I believe it's up to the accuser to provide evidence for their claims, rather than just dumping an AI-generated list of members and expecting others to do the work for them.

I already addressed your first point. Move on fake legend.

Here's the result (ChatGPT result that I filtered manually)

So much assumption, WOWW. I always read their shitpost on last 2 page before giving score.

Unlike you, 2 real legendary already noticed the patterns you're trying to ignore. Since you want 'proof' of what a mindless AI dump looks like, go actually read it https://pastebin.com/fh1dhVZc.

[perfect999]

Until, usage of AI in writing posts to be considered as serve as plagiarism, we are going to see this kind of situation always: people use AI contents to grow activity and to gain merits along with tags for using AI for writing posts yet managers are going to hire them. This is definitely unfair situation for all those other people here who use all their time and knowledge to write posts. People who go for research and other hard works on writing constructive posts will definitely feel the real pain out of this for sure.

Using AI for writing posts should be considered as equivalent of copy-pasting and should lead to permanent ban. Just tagging will not stop them.

[ABCbits]

Anyone want to make a bet/speculation about how many account will receive permaban or sigban due to this thread? I bet somewhere between 0 to 3.

I just came from another Topic where some body mentioned the existence of Guest posts in the past.  Hell.  Some times I really wish we still had those.  It would be a lot less controversial than creating a new 'disposable' alternative account particularly for such things.

That won't happen, because im very confident SEO spammer will endlessly abuse such guest post feature.

[yahoo62278]

Until, usage of AI in writing posts to be considered as serve as plagiarism, we are going to see this kind of situation always: people use AI contents to grow activity and to gain merits along with tags for using AI for writing posts yet managers are going to hire them. This is definitely unfair situation for all those other people here who use all their time and knowledge to write posts. People who go for research and other hard works on writing constructive posts will definitely feel the real pain out of this for sure.

Using AI for writing posts should be considered as equivalent of copy-pasting and should lead to permanent ban. Just tagging will not stop them.

I would prefer that users make their posts using their own words and minds, not by using AI. I am not sure they should receive a perma ban on a 1st offense, but I don't think they should be in sig campaigns if they cannot post with their own ideas.

In short I am ok with users using AI, but I think the AI posts should not be counted for campaigns.

[Alpha Marine]

I care. It doesn't invalidate the accusations, per se, but I give it higher priority when it comes from a "senior" forum member. That's the whole point of forum ranks. It's one thing to express your political or other beliefs while wishing to remain anonymous, but it's another thing entirely to accuse fellow members of spamming while hiding behind a "newbie" account.  A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

If the accusation is coming in a way you can't verify, then it can be questioned. But if it's an accusation like this that can easily be verified by everybody on the forum, I don't think it matters who it comes from. We have also seen times when people put a target on their backs because they accused some senior members on the forum of something. The clique of the accused can start attacking them. So I don't blame people who use burner accounts.
For me, if there is any accusation I can't make with my main account, then I won't make it, but that is just me. It doesn't mean people are not allowed to create a new account to make an accusation in order to protect their account.

[nullius]

Using AI for writing posts should be considered as equivalent of copy-pasting and should lead to permanent ban. Just tagging will not stop them.

I don’t understand why it’s not.  Would someone please explain to me why LLM slop isn’t already covered under the existing copypasta ban rule?  Slop posters are literally copy-pasting text from another website.  In the context of protecting the forum, the only significant difference makes it worse:  In some cases, accusations are harder to prove—and therefore, false accusations are harder to disprove.

I’m thinking of it like a date rape accusation:  Very important to prosecute if true, very important not to punish for if false, and oft in practice hard to prove or disprove.

Again, I recommend studying how Wikipedia handles this.

I would prefer that users make their posts using their own words and minds, not by using AI. I am not sure they should receive a perma ban on a 1st offense, but I don't think they should be in sig campaigns if they cannot post with their own ideas.

In short I am ok with users using AI, but I think the AI posts should not be counted for campaigns.

Why!?  How is spamming the forum with LLM slop not worth a permaban-with-extreme-prejudice?

I even argue that iff a slop plagiarism case is decisively proved to a high standard of evidence, then staff should use the handy “nuke” button which bans the account and deletes all of its posts with one click.    This policy would incentivize CMs to be strict in keeping slop out of their campaigns:  It means that you get negative value from a slop spammer.  All of their posts with their signatures are gone, and they walked away with your money.

The Slop Slap

When prompt jockeys dump slop into the forum, that’s a slap in the face to everyone who actually puts creativity, effort, knowledge, and other valuable human qualities into their posts.  I can’t think of any stronger deterrent to good posters.  Call it Reason 101 to Nuke Slop.

[shahzadafzal]

I'm reply to below quote of nullius

Using AI for writing posts should be considered as equivalent of copy-pasting and should lead to permanent ban. Just tagging will not stop them.

I don’t understand why it’s not.  Would someone please explain to me why LLM slop isn’t already covered under the existing copypasta ban rule?  Slop posters are literally copy-pasting text from another website.  In the context of protecting the forum, the only significant difference makes it worse:  In some cases, accusations are harder to prove—and therefore, false accusations are harder to disprove.

I’m thinking of it like a date rape accusation:  Very important to prosecute if true, very important not to punish for if false, and oft in practice hard to prove or disprove.

Again, I recommend studying how Wikipedia handles this.

I would prefer that users make their posts using their own words and minds, not by using AI. I am not sure they should receive a perma ban on a 1st offense, but I don't think they should be in sig campaigns if they cannot post with their own ideas.

In short I am ok with users using AI, but I think the AI posts should not be counted for campaigns.

Why!?  How is spamming the forum with LLM slop not worth a permaban-with-extreme-prejudice?

I even argue that iff a slop plagiarism case is decisively proved to a high standard of evidence, then staff should use the handy “nuke” button which bans the account and deletes all of its posts with one click.    This policy would incentivize CMs to be strict in keeping slop out of their campaigns:  It means that you get negative value from a slop spammer.  All of their posts with their signatures are gone, and they walked away with your money.

The Slop Slap

When prompt jockeys dump slop into the forum, that’s a slap in the face to everyone who actually puts creativity, effort, knowledge, and other valuable human qualities into their posts.  I can’t think of any stronger deterrent to good posters.  Call it Reason 101 to Nuke Slop.

Well, I agree with you to some extent. Rules around AI-generated content are getting stricter across many platforms. YouTube has tightened its monetization policies around mass-produced and repetitive content, while platforms like X and Instagram have introduced ways to identify or label certain AI-generated content.

But instead of treating every AI-assisted post as outright plagiarism, how about introducing a little transparency?

What if we added a dedicated AI-Assisted icon to Bitcointalk's existing post/topic icons?

Something like this:



It could appear as an additional icon when creating a new post or topic:



And when viewing the forum, AI-assisted posts would be easier to identify:



Of course, this wouldn't magically solve the AI slop problem. Spammers aren't exactly known for their honesty.

But it could encourage genuine users to be transparent about their use of AI, while allowing readers to judge the content for themselves.

It could also help signature campaign managers decide whether to include or exclude AI-assisted posts based on their campaign requirements.

And just to be clear, voluntarily selecting an AI icon shouldn't give anyone immunity from plagiarism rules, spam reports, or getting nuked.

I'm sure you guys, or SMF wizards like PowerGlove, could come up with even better ways to handle this.

Or perhaps, God forbid, theymos will eventually introduce an AGI-powered moderator that automatically detects AI slop, tags posts, and nukes accounts. Imagine an AI bot hunting down AI-generated posts... 🤣

Anyway, I'm considering creating a separate thread in Meta to discuss this proposal.

Do you think something like this could work, or would it just become another icon that nobody bothers to use?

[lovesmayfamilis]

Do you think something like this could work, or would it just become another icon that nobody bothers to use?

In addition, it is necessary to take into account and provide for the possibility to ignore publications marked with this sign, in case the user does not want to read the "thoughts of AI." If this feature is implemented, then those who seek to increase the rating will and receive merits noticeably decrease their motivation to create content using AI, as they will realize that their "circle of readers" will significantly decrease.

[nullius]

But instead of treating every AI-assisted post as outright plagiarism, how about introducing a little transparency?

What if we added a dedicated AI-Assisted icon to Bitcointalk's existing post/topic icons?

I strongly oppose this idea for many reasons, including but not limited to:

• It legitimates LLM slop with a social signal it’s okay, thus incentivizing more of it.  This would open the floodgates.  Social stigma is a powerful force; cf. my culture war against the stigmatization of no-KYC.  Here, we need to stigmatize slop as hard as possible, so only useless eaters will not get the message that it’s NOT WELCOME HERE.  Who wants to give permission, to invite slop spam?
• You forgot (?) to include a global auto-ignorelist, which users can set to ignorelist in toto all users who have ever made even one LLM slop post.  I myself never want to waste even ten seconds reading any post by anyone who ever copypastas a chatbot onto the forum—and I reasonably suspect that I’m not alone!
  
  Personal note:  I don’t use an ignorelist.  This thread reminds me I need to start using one for anyone who ever rubs so-called “AI-assisted” shit in my face.
• Even with all prompt jockeys ignorelisted, their slop will leak out in quotes from other users.

• ...that’s a slap in the face to everyone who actually puts creativity, effort, knowledge, and other valuable human qualities into their posts.
  

  For the foregoing reasons (and more), it would force people who put serious time and effort into their posts to compete with freely-allowed LLM slop in the forum’s attention market.  This punishes good posters for being good, and deters them from participating in the community.  (A game-theoretic statement of this problem is left as an exercise to the reader.)

• Of course, this wouldn't magically solve the AI slop problem. Spammers aren't exactly known for their honesty.
  

  So, it’s strictly a net negative.

• It could also help signature campaign managers decide whether to include or exclude AI-assisted posts based on their campaign requirements.
  

  It would incentivize spammer behaviour by CMs themselves—and thus, it would economically punish CMs who care more about the long-term health of the community than about short-term money-grabs.  By raw numbers, LLM slop spammer CMs would probably have a competitive edge against good CMs who keep the forum as a place for human beings to talk to each other.

If this were ever implemented, I myself would consider a categorical policy of red-tagging any CM who pays prompt jockeys to spam the forum with LLM slop.

Something like this:



[...]

And when viewing the forum, AI-assisted posts would be easier to identify:

Ah, such happy robots inviting you to spend your human lifetime eating chatbot crap on the Bitcoin Forum.  If anything like this is ever implemented (which I strongly oppose!), I propose instead using this icon:

🤮

[shahzadafzal]

In addition, it is necessary to take into account and provide for the possibility to ignore publications marked with this sign, in case the user does not want to read the "thoughts of AI." If this feature is implemented, then those who seek to increase the rating will and receive merits noticeably decrease their motivation to create content using AI, as they will realize that their "circle of readers" will significantly decrease.

That would actually be a great feature!

An option to ignore or hide all posts tagged as AI Assisted would give users more control over what they want to read.

And this could be particularly useful with some of the AI-related projects and automated content we already have on the forum.

For example:

- BobLawblaw's AI bot, BobClawblaw
- Our beloved ChartBuddy (although I wouldn't dare put him on my ignore list! )
- fillippone's Wall Observer Anthology

Of course, these aren't all examples of AI-generated posts in the same sense, but they do show how automation and AI-related tools can contribute something useful to the forum.

So we already have some interesting use cases to build upon.

Rather than fighting AI altogether, wouldn't it make more sense to embrace it responsibly, introduce some transparency, and give users the choice to filter what they don't want to see?

After all, AI isn't going anywhere. We might as well figure out how to make it useful without letting the forum drown in AI slop. (Thinking emoji)


Edit - nullius:
I had already drafted my previous reply before you posted yours.

Well, I still see some genuinely useful applications of AI on the forum. For example, I enjoy BobLawblaw's AI-generated summaries, and fillippone's Wall Observer Anthology is another interesting example of how these tools can be put to good use.

Of course, the definition of useful varies from person to person. What one person considers AI slop, another might actually find valuable.

Anyway, it was just a suggestion, not an invitation to open the floodgates to AI-generated spam.

I agree that an icon alone wouldn't meaningfully reduce AI slop, but neither would nuking accounts completely eliminate it. At best, both approaches address different parts of the problem.

My point was simply to explore whether we could distinguish between responsible AI assistance and outright AI-generated spam, rather than treating everything involving AI as equally worthless.

And judging by your reaction to that happy little robot, I suppose I can get more help from AI in creating a less cheerful version. 🤮😂