Topic: AI-generated post discussion thread: how to identify & report - page 7. (Read 2717 times)

If you have your own ideas you usually hardly will use AI to express them. Because you can do it by yourself. And if you are too lazy to form your own opinion you'll hardly rewrite or adapt a text. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I think that majority of those ones who will use AI for posting on forums will not really take part in discussions or learn something new. AI is good to make work easier but communication with others is IMO not a subject which needs simplification.

That is the future I fear: the internet as we know it will cease to exist. For now, the AI-spam is still the result of "ask question, copy result, post result", but in a few years it could very well be: "Hey AI, create a bunch of accounts on Bitcointalk, start posting, join signature campaigns, and make me money!", and by the time that works, it's a lost cause for humans.

Just because something is hard doesn't mean it can't be done, or shouldn't be done. Is there even one example of a forum member who was accused of using AI and wasn't? Or that was negatively affected by such an accusation?

Of course its hard to definitively prove one way or the other, which is why I'm not advocating for any witch hunts. But how does one go about providing satisfactory proof that a post was written by AI? I believe its possible to come up with criteria that would satisfy any neutral party and have yet to see any problems caused by it thus far.

Perhaps if a resulting post is considered spam then it doesn't really matter if it was AI generated or not, but for the sake of fulfilling the conditions posed by Royse777 its important to know the difference.

We are already losing it. ChatGPT is being integrated into our lives and work environments in the same way that the Internet began to be integrated 25 years ago and cell phones 15 years ago. We can swim against the tide all we want in this forum to stay in the dinosaur era as the world continues to progress thanks to the internet, mobile and AI.

I am all for AI, especially if it is used as leverage, where the human rewrites and adapts, and not just copy-pastes.

That's what's hard, creating a standard to define what is AI text and what isn't. That's what we shouldn't do, because that could harm users who aren't using those tools. Creating patterns in text is very difficult, because it involves many variables.

Those who misuse the AI will easily be caught, it doesn't take much effort on our part to do so. The biggest problem is, which I don't think exists yet, is the emergence of AI bots that will post on the forum, with their own style, so that the user can level up and participate in campaigns.

That's the thing though: shitposters are turning to AI for the same reason they turn to plagiarism: they are lazy and uncreative. They're not gonna go out of their way to modify the text for those reasons. If they do, then the text stands a higher chance of not being detected as AI-generated, and thus there's no basis for its removal (unless its off-topic / spam).


Nah, in addition to it just bugging me, this thread was motivated by this clause that Royse777 has been putting in his signature campaigns:


It raises the interesting question of how to create a fair standard for defining AI-generated texts.

Really the only desire I have for shitposters is to be more human and less machine.

I've seen ChatGPT spit out some questionable English grammar. You can probably even ask it to make some poorly-Englished texts.

At the end of the day I think we'll lose this battle either way. AI bots will get better, humans will get tired. Ideally mods should have been deleting low value barely-on-topic generic waffle posts anyway. If that were the case then AI wouldn't represent much of an issue. If someone puts in enough effort into coaching the AI to write a good useful text (basically using it to do the google/wiki/etc legwork) that's fair game IMO. But if your regular shitposter just asks AI to write a generic post in this thread then it would stand out like any other sigshitpost and should be deleted.

Keep in mind that we don't need to catch every single shitposter/AI bot/etc. With the evil fee and whatnot it should be enough to just start banning the shittiest ones consistently and make it not worth it for them. I doubt that will happen though, so... then what? Red trust on suspicion of AI usage?

If someone gave AI good enough criteria and AI made a post which should look like written by human we probably can't find out if it is not written by human. But usually those ones who've been caught on highly likely using AI for posting are not so thorough, the texts they post look unnatural, written in common words and having not much sense. Of course some real users write text the same way by themselves... but should we really care of the texts which have low quality and look like made by AI?

It is used also as a payment for services. Its a spanish spoken forum from Mexico. Yes, I have used parts of the balance. It is limited to 30 Post though.

Isnt it through practicing daily and based on personal experience? Also what you mean by gives 1cent per each post? Isnt it a normal way to have discussion on normal ways? Plus AI generated topics copied are probably noticeable than self improve posting of someone.

bitcointalk needs to find ways to stop in its tracks those texts from pretrained software. Reason being that search engines are not very fond of these texts which translates into less visibility.

There are ways to enhance good posts. I know of a forum who gives 1 cent for each sensitive post.
He uses USDT for that.

For the sake of research, let's look at the LoyceV post in all 7 detectors. Here is the snippet he analyzed that came back 97% likely to be AI according to detector.dng.ai:


1. OpenAI Text Classifier: (doesn't meet minimum character count)
2. Writer.com: 53% human-generated content
3. GPTZero.me: Your text is likely to be written entirely by AI
4. Contentscale.ai: 26% - Highly likely to be AI generated!
5. Writefull.com: 54% likely this comes from GPT-3, GPT-4 or ChatGPT.
6. Hivemoderation.com: 99.9% - The input is likely to contain AI Generated Text
7. Paraphrasingtool.ai: It's likely that AI wrote this text

So this time around, detectors 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 all gave the expected answer (though #5 at 54% isn't exactly "convincing"). So based on a sample size of 2, detectors 4, 5 and 6 are thus far the most accurate, with Hivemoderation.com being the most accurate. Will need to do more such tests before coming to any conclusions.

One thing for certain is detector.dng.ai shouldn't be used. It didn't even make the cut in this article which is where I found these.

Not only that, but there's even starting to be job offers for "ChatGPT Prompt Engineer" , as if that was a tech job

Every AI needs a prompt. It is easy to master it after playing with prompts on most AI. I do not think those who use AI to reply or create topics are so naive. gptzero according to me still good to detect an AI. I have used it to detect many submission. Almost everytime it cam up with a correct analysis.


I also agree that an AI generated response has flawless English. Still, there are many ways to disguise flawless English if you know how to write a prompt. Even there are a few platforms that can help you with it for free. Even Google is finding is difficult to detect AI written articles.

I would say the best way to recognise if an article is written by an AI is to see whether it uses pronoun and also noun in it. As we humans tend to use it more often for communicating with each other. This where a communication between humans become to and fro.

I wanted to do some more tests, based on the example I made.


Written with the help of: ChatGPT, using other words
The overall idea is commendable and warrants careful monitoring of potential suspect posts.

However, the aforementioned statement is suboptimal. Recently, I recall LoyceV testing their own text and those detectors marking it as AI-generated. Consequently, these systems asserting a 50% or greater probability of AI-generated text may be 100% mistaken.

Furthermore, not all possess fluency in English nor possess the capacity to write in English, hence they may utilize translation and writing assistance systems. Personally, I use Google Translate to compose posts on this forum in English and sometimes employ the Grammarly tool to refine my writing. The chance of being perceived as AI-generated text is significantly elevated.

Thus, I have composed this post employing four methods: writing solely with Google Translate, composing with ChatGPT translation, utilizing Google Translate and Grammarly, and using ChatGPT and Grammarly in tandem. Please assess accordingly.

---

Written with the help of: ChatGPT, in just 200 words
The idea is good, but suspicious posts must be closely monitored. However, some systems claiming a 50% or higher chance of AI-generated text could be wrong. Recently, LoyceV's self-tested text was marked as AI-generated by detectors, highlighting the issue. Additionally, not everyone is fluent in English or has the ability to write well in English. Some may use translation and writing assistance systems like Google Translate or Grammarly. This raises the likelihood of being perceived as AI-generated text. To demonstrate this point, I wrote this post using four methods: Google Translate only, ChatGPT translation, Google Translate with Grammarly, and ChatGPT with Grammarly. It is important to analyze posts carefully, especially in the case of suspect text.

---

In both cases the detector says it was written 100% by humans.

Should I turn JARVIS into a shooting range where I make it randomly alternate between human posts and AI generated posts so that you guys have have a target to practice your methods on? (Just don't get it banned, that's all )

I will use a deterministic random number generator using the post number as the seed to determine whether I should make it post an AI or human post.

AI detecting tools are tools created by an ordinary person which are not certain to be entirely correct while detecting, there are every possibility of scanning through a post and it would results as AI generated post.
For instance, I use myself as an example i don't usually like using Abbreviation while posting and i make sure words are correctly spelled, why?
Because i know too well this site (Forum) is a reference site and is open for everyone to source information, so i tries all my best to make sure i limits the rates of using those unlikely terms and words. Although i know too well that there are some addicts who loves using shorter words or abbreviations to what they are writing, but all text and words being correctly spelled doesn't really guaranteed someone using AI to generate  those words because there are no facts to detect is 100 percent correct.

Otherwise i can say, if a post is created and immediately has a reply without even a seconds after posting then it could be rest assured that such person is using AI to write in my opinion. Please i am not in any way countering your words or arguing words with you but the fact remains uncertain, if there were other ways then that would be more better to detect if someone is a Bot.

In the example of my post, when using one of the recommended detectors, it indicates the 4 options written by human. What is correct.
But I found it interesting that in the first 3 options he was 97-99% sure he was human. While in the last option (Written with the help of: ChatGPT & Grammarly) it identified as 100% written by human.

That is, if the person uses the right tools, with half a dozen clicks and one or another adjustment, the detectors are no longer effective.

Using an automatic system to detect text written by AI will only be effective if that AI uses a standard element. Thing, that doesn't happen. Now, you can use terms or expressions that normally a human, in a written conversation, is not used. And this can be an element that draws attention, but even so, you have to be careful about classifying it as done by AI or not.

It is not fair to assume that someone who writes in flawless English is necessarily plagiarizing or using AI-generated text, and I disagree with this assumption because I believe there could be a third possibility.

In my opinion, @joker_josue makes a valid point. It is difficult to differentiate between content generated by ChatGPT and text that has been translated from a non-English native language to English or edited using ChatGPT and similar tools. I do not think there is a clear way to distinguish between the two, and I suspect that most AI Content Detectors would classify the text as AI-generated, even if it is not the case.

I would add a moment to how quickly posts written by AI are published. Sometimes you can see quite long posts being posted in a short amount of time when the average person would not be able to write as fast.

And yes, I have several examples of good reports where the moderators marked the reports as good.


https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6203/62036246.html
https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6203/62036255.html
https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6203/62036260.html
https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6199/61993288.html

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6188/61885663.html
https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6188/61885806.html
https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6188/61885793.html
https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6188/61885849.html
https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6188/61885810.html
https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6188/61885733.html


https://ninjastic.space/search?author=Cathy_57&board=34