Topic: AI posts and my feedback on the borovichok account (Read 836 times)

Over a period of time, the software behind AI (and there are multiple sources) will improve and become closer to what we could deem as perfect in the sense we will be unable to distinguish between a human or AI when reading the text. In the future, the same will be applied to audio where we will be unable to distinguish of the voice we are hearing is from a human or AI generated.

As for the forum, the use of AI will increase and even though many will use it for many purposes (not exclusively to increase member rank), it will be driven by account farmers who will use it for precisely that reason and/or to try to infiltrate the trust system.

If AIs were so real to think from one brain and not assembling data randomly on the internet, there wouldn't be any way to prove that a post is AI generated. It is because these AI takes random and generic options and including facts and compile them together. That is why the results are easily detected as AI. If AI users become well advanced and use AI in the real and professional way, it might be difficult to detect an AI written posts. But, above all else, think about it why would one decide to use AI to post in a forum where humans brainstorm to profer solutions.

“AI” is advanced programming that collects authored data, mixes it up and spits it back out. That is technically completely other peoples work. If AGI existed , real AI imo, then we’d not be able to detect it as it would be legitimately a new authored post most likely far better than most could dream of writing. I see the shit in “legit” mainstream news and media outlets being used and feel it’s insanely unethical. (My 2 as a reformed convict dipshit, so I don’t have much room to talk ).

The way AI is being used in the forum is in a very early stage. Some of those that are using AI to make posts are themselves learning about it as they experiment with the capability levels of AI as well as automated posting scripts. If it is being implemented in the medical field then I agree this is a much more scarier prospect (but having said that, it will be an evolving on-going process that probably aims to become perfect over time).

I just got done watching a video about how overused ChatGPT terms are making their way into the medical literature--and very quickly, too.  That seems to point to medical researchers using AI at the very least to assist in their writing, and to me that's scarier than any of its use on bitcointalk.

But you're correct I think; a year from now I'm guessing we're going to see a lot of AI-generated posts and unless someone creates an excellent tool for catching them....I couldn't even guess what "discussions" are going to look like.  The only bright spot is that account farming is still a difficult thing to do because of the merit system, i.e., it's hard to rank up a stable of accounts without earning merits.  Then again, merits can be bought or given from friends, alt accounts, and who knows where else.  So yeah, the future might be pretty damn bleak for our beloved forum.

Well, I think that as long as you add a human touch and don't just copy-paste, it's not so bad. I consult AI practically every day, and I think that in the near future using it will be as common as using the internet today. In fact, I believe that search engine searches like google are going to be replaced by AI searches.


Without knowing exact data, it has certainly grown, as has the use of AI around the world.

You are mistaken, there is no hot blood nor high temperature from my side therefore there is no need to calm down 

It has taken a long time for him to give up on the borovichok account and in that process he enrolled on to the Stake campaign and with that had a regular income stream. Fortunately that too is now part of the referenced materials.

JollyGood you are trying from your end but calm down. Your blood is hot and the temperature is high but calm down, in a community the good and the bad are always in mixed reaction. That bad which are the defaulters also say they are right and refuse to take correct from the good ones which are the experts and borovichok was one of the bad who refused to take advice and corrections. Chances were given to him but he gave all deaf ears and today the results is clear. There was no way borovichok stopped the using of AI and people would be accusing him of continues using of AI even they are not using the right tools as he said in one the threads.

 I really like your compilation. You did your part for him to stop the using of the AI to post but all was no avail. And today he has resigned from the campaign and also asked the admin to deactivate the account in the forum and that means the account will be dormant from any moments from now. Therefore there should be no too much input on the issue again but all these will be a reference materials in the future. nutildah has also tried on this case. I have read threads and comments on this particular case and finally you removed the red tag and that means that you were not even interested with red flag but to warned.

How far away are we from that point, I think it is borderline happening already but with the help of human intervention proof reading. If a super-spammer wants to do it, eventually they will be noticed but if it is done more carefully and not automatically posted but a human proof reads the work to add a human touch to it, then becomes a little less detectable.

There are already huge accounts farmers operating in the forum, they have been for many years. They are beginning to change behaviours to adapt to the modern system (bots, AI, etc) and when one changes their style, others will follow. What will happen to the account farmers when one account gets caught? Nothing. They will continue to post with the other accounts until they get caught and in the interim will continue to create new accounts.

I wonder what percentage of active accounts in the previous 3 months are using AI and if it were possible to know, to use that as a comparator to the same period one year ago. That would be an interesting statistic.

What I fear about this is that the day will come when you will be able to tell an AI: "write a text about X but that it cannot be detected as written by an AI" and it will do it correctly, in an undetectable way. Then account farmers like this will be able to make gold, although I don't know what effect it will have on everything globally. For example, if when visiting a forum you can't be sure whether you are talking to humans or to text massively written by AIs, I don't know if people will lose interest in the forums.

Mmmhmm... And why do you think that is? Is there a chance you should perhaps consider changing your posting habits if you don't want your posts deleted?



How many $$$ did you lose (along with your campaign spot) all because you failed to grasp (The not so-subtle) hints that people had been giving you since over 2 years now? You had plenty of opportunities to learn but instead you insisted what you were doing was OK. Maybe in your mind it still is, but that's the problem.

Frankly its surprising your account hasn't been banned yet.

In the first case, I thought the member would change given that he had got a second chance. In fact, at that time, I didn't even bother leaving any neutral tag on his profile. What was disappointing was his continued use of AI to generate text with impunity many more times later.
Worse still, he went ahead to lie in his defense instead of admitting his mistake. Clearly the neutral tags from other members weren't helping.

The AI threat is growing bigger every day. If we return to this question a year from now, I think we will see a massive difference in the number of posts being made by one puppeteer controlling a number of farmed accounts that use AI. It is easier than ever to operate a farmed account because it has become an automated process for account farmers.

It would be a hard task for campaign managers to proof read each post to check whether AI was used or not therefore that should probably not be an option. If theymos was to intervene to make clear exactly how to deal with AI posts, the problem would be solved.

I'm not sure I even saw your thread (though I haven't checked--my memory is crap, and I could have posted in it), but if I did I don't think I would have opposed you for leaving a negative trust for an AI-spammer.  IMO you got a lot of crap for it because you've gotten a lot of crap in the past for other feedbacks you've left.

However, my perception of the threat to the forum from members using AI to make what amount to shitposts has shifted in the time you created this thread and now.  At this point unless Theymos makes a rule or campaign managers explicitly ban the use of AI, I have no qualms whatsoever negging anyone who looks like they're using an AI program to make posts. 

Nor do I care what anyone else thinks (unless I was mistaken about said use of AI and thus handed out a negative wrongly).  I'd like to remind any of you who were here at the end of 2017, before the merit system came to be, that a few DT members were using the only tool available to them--the trust system--to combat the rapidly rising problem of shitposters, account farmers, and alt accounts abusing campaigns.  IMO it's much better to beg for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission, and that's how I roll.

You are far more generous towards these super-spammers than I could ever be 

He had many chances over that period of time to stop using extremely questionable ways to post whether it was deemed to be AI or allowing other people to login to his account to post on his behalf. Instead, all he wanted to do was to meet his campaign quota and he did not care how he did it including lying every step of the way even stooping so low as to use the name of a deceased cryptographic genius just to get merits in order to rank up and join the Stake campaign.

Now he will not be able to use the borovichok account for campaigns which means he has more time on his hands focusing on his other accounts.

It seems I shouldn't have dissuaded you 

Thank you for the advice. One of things I do not do is take things too seriously. There was a time when I was searching for scams and posting about them almost 100% of my activity was in that board and during that time in 2017 I took things personally and used large fonts with aggressive words, I have been very calm over a number of years now no matter how the drama unfolds in the forum

You were spot on, he had ample chance I removed the negative trust but he did not change his ways. The second chance certainly failed in that instance but I am glad eventually his own behaviour led to his downfall. That very strange combination of what seems to be using AI and also allowing others to login and post on his account is something I cannot recall seeing before.

Having said that, there is a serious matter about what the threshold is (or should be) for giving negative tags for those spamming with or without using AI. That is something that probably theymos needs to clarify if forum members cannot find consensus.

Don't take everything too personally, see it as it is. You gave him a red tag, many thought it was too harsh a punishment. That's why you gave him a second chance and removed the red tag, unfortunately, he didn't understand it and continued with his old habits.
If he had arguments in his favour the first time, he certainly doesn't have them now.

If out of ten similar cases, one user accepts his mistakes and adapts, then it is worth deleting the negative feedback and giving him a second chance.

I have decided to unlock this thread because I noticed a new thread about the borovichok account using AI and subsequently discovered two members of the forum have given the borovichok account negative trust.

When I gave him negative trust for the same thing albeit it was 10 weeks ago, it created an issue where the borovichok account began using every opportunity effectively citing the negative tag was unfair on the basis spamming and/or AI did not constitute a negative tag. Many forum members agreed in principle that AI use and spamming did not constitute a negative tag.

The borovichok account even celebrated when three members excluded me stating: I'm glad my most recent instance provided him - 3 Votes.

What will the members that either had reservations or opposition to the one negative tag I left on the borovichok account in January 2024 say now to the two members that left negative tags on the borovichok account in March 2024 for the same conduct?

What is the message the same members now want to send out to those signature spamming, using AI and using others to login to their account and post on their behalf?

Not only that, there is much improved grammar and focus when trying to get merits citing delusions of grandeur mentioning Hal Finney and when also complaining about a tag.

Other than that, the grammar does fall short regularly in the gambling board to the point when it is hard to tell if the owner of the borovichok account is actually the one that is posting such is the difference in posting styles from spam to incoherent ramblings.

There are two opinions stating the tag should be removed.

I think you have covered the issue in the best way under the current circumstances with wisdom therefore I have decided to remove the negative tag and with that it is not necessary to keep the thread open. Your approach is one that has a completely different vibe to what has mostly been posted here and that is an important factor when trying to present an opinion. I was going to keep the thread open for a wider debate but feel it is no longer necessary.

Also, you made some very important comments about the flag system and about tags but they will probably not be addressed by theymos unless it is raised in Meta (and even then most probably will not change anything).

----
As mentioned in the feedback I left for borovichok, I stated I would revise the negative feedback if further information was presented as advised by icopress and for that reason, I have.

As for the type of tags that should be given for AI posts, that is something myself or another member will create a new thread for in the future when the issue of AI posts becomes far more prevalent than it is today.

Until then, here is the post again that is supposed to written by the same person with excellent grammar posting in this thread using the borovichok account complaining about a tag:

If this user was a participant in one of my campaigns and was caught publishing AI-generated posts, I would definitely mark him with a red tag. I also believe that after the introduction of the flag system, both negative and positive tags can be more flexible and cover many issues not related to trading risk.

But perhaps in this particular case, you can change the tag to neutral in the spirit of a second chance (and because the user is not currently participating in any campaign). You will always have time to return to the red tag, but perhaps your flexibility in this matter would show this user another path that does not involve spam.

Based on what you've stated and the few threads I've seen on this case. The red is inappropriate and should not even be debated. If you're unsure of your decision, use neutral ( not recommended though). If you're going to create a thread like this asking for opinions on your judgement, sooner or later the community will start wondering if you're fit to be on DT at all. Alot has been said on the other related threads I've read, you should look them up and make your decision. I'm not sure you'll be able to grab everyone's attention on this one. Unless you prefer being the centre of attention, get it done.

Why not stay on topic and answer JollyGood's question and stop asking me unnecessary questions.

What are you trying to prove?  From what I've seen, almost everyone who has commented in those threads agrees that you're a shitposter.  Are you denying that?

Where is the AI post? So it's suddenly okay for anyone to determine what to write on other people's feedback pages? Without any evidence? I don't have ChatGPT crap or use AI to write anything on my account. (I have thousands of posts.) Provide just one AI generated post in my history to back your tag or are you going to leave another invalid reference link? JollyGood respect goes both ways. I've been respecting you but you ain't doing the same and it's obvious.

They already air their views. You can find them here.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/have-the-rules-of-the-dt-system-and-forum-rules-amended-theymos-5481352
And
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/would-you-tag-these-users-5480825

It is good, the thread is gaining traction albeit slowly. That is one opinion stating that the tag should be removed.





---

The thread will remain open for now.

As stated in the OP, if there is serious debate and the general view (it does not have to be overwhelming consensus) of senior and respected members is that his negative tag should be removed, I will remove it and replace it with another neutral this time to cover the AI but the original neutral tag for spamming and posting replies to himself will also stay.

Moderator deleted the post - another lie from a lie detector.
And I've created only one thread concerning your tag.



I did not disrespect HaI (RIP), but rather took part in the "Running Bitcoin" fundraising event and gave my small portion. I saw there was no discussion about it anyplace on the forum where he spent time and contributed, so I had to share it to raise awareness. If you do not support the Bitcoin community in any manner, do not try to prevent others from doing so.

I'm not your enemy, and you've spent the last three years monitoring my account every morning you wake up? It must be exhausting.

A wall of texts with no AI-generated post evidence? Please don't use my feedback page as a reminder or notepad. Respect goes both ways.

You did not need to write his entire career here just to prove that your negative tag is justified. We all know that the guy became a shit poster just to make some money from the signature campaign and he was posting over 100 posts a week to get maximum payment. If you tag this user for such behavior, you should tag all other stake signature participants because there are a lot of accounts that joined the campaign with just airdropped merits. They do not engage in typical discussions to avoid being caught.

I had a disagreement with BitcoinGirl in a thread because I agreed with you. That does not mean I always agree with you. Your tagging behavior is excessive. Don't take things personally. This guy disagreed/or did not hear you a year ago, and this is the reason you started running after him. The negative tag is NOT Justified. You should remove it.

I left neutral feedback for the “borovichok” account on 22nd February 2022 because of the constant nonsense he was posting in one of my football threads. I received a PM in March 2023 (over a year later) which was when string of nonsense posts were sent to me wanting the feedback removed.

A week ago I gave a negative tag as he has moved on to either AI posts or the only plausible explanation could be that he has given access to the account to other people that have a ridiculously low understanding of English grammar or those that use some form of translator to paste replies for him. And if that were the case, why? After that, there has been a flurry of activity by him trying to get the negative tag removed.

Last year I noticed an increase in activity of this account, posting in threads and boards he would normally not and to me it was clear the intention was to get to a higher rank to join a signature campaign. There is nothing wrong with that but when you conduct dubious activity to achieve it, that certainly cannot be right.

One of the lowest gutter level things that anybody can do here is to use the name of a dead person to try to get as many merits as possible in order to try to rank up. Here is how a spammer and low quality poster somehow overnight manages to become aware of Hal Finney, apparently has photos of him participating by running in an event to raise funds.

Though not a crime for reporting unmerited good posts in associated threads, here he is trying to get more merits on an unmerited post report threads on his own posts that already have merits. He made sure he was using the name of a dead man (the amazing Hal Finney) at the top to get noticed more. He used the  Report unmerited good posts to Merit Source thread by LoyceV:


Now if that was not enough here is again trying to get merits on already merited posts using the name of Hal Finney on 17th April 2023 in the [Merit] Share your best posts/threads with Fillippone to be merit assessed by fillippone:


In the OP of that thread, he wrote one particular point that had something very interesting about it. He claimed to go on fundraising events which miraculously he never discussed before nor did he even even mention the name of Hal Finney or his illness while he was too busy spamming the gambling board. He actually claimed he was in the photos and he was running with others in that event and he covers the lie with other lies as the thread goes on:


The spammer decided all of a sudden to try to hit that 500 merit mark to achieve Hero rank and went in overdrive trying to get there. There are several posts in that thread that show how manipulative some people are and the levels of their character must be so disgusting that they would fabricate entire lies about someone such as Hal Finney just in order to get merits to rank up. This is the part that sickens me.

Please correct me if I am wrong but in all his years of being a member of the forum (since 2017) he made six mentions of Hal Finney (Hal or Finney) and all were miraculously in 2023 between March and April: https://ninjastic.space/search?author=borovichok&content=hal

As soon as he had 500 merits, he was in the Stake campaign and well, that was the end of him posting in Bitcoin discussions. After that all he did was to post in Gambling board and even now, his previous 32 posts are in mixed threads mostly complaining about the negative tag yet before that, going back hundreds of posts almost all are in the gambling board. He started to post in other boards AFTER he received the negative tag. Clearly, he lied to get merits and once reached Hero rank he moved on to the Stake campaign and these are not the behaviours of those with a single account but that is a discussion for another thread on another day.

After ranking up and moving to spamming in gambling boards he did almost nothing except post about football in order to get payments from the Stake campaign and it does have hallmarks of one puppeteer operating several accounts but nothing was proven even though super-spammers "Jasad" and "CryptocurencyKing" accounts were posting replies to his “borovichok” account which was pages back yet they ignored posts that were far more recent and relevant.

He will delete anything that he can think of in order to avoid controversy, including the AI post but it was quoted: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63382470 but that is his regular pattern.

But here is the post he thought he had deleted, it is in shorted format and it is not written by the person that is using the borovichok account to post in this thread.


-------------------------


Now, in your opinion if none of this is worthy of a negative tag but just a neutral tag, it still exposes the disgusting character of the person operating the borovichok account and those dealing with him should keep that in mind. At least this thread exposed how manipulative and deranged he is in his pursuit to reach a higher rank that for the sake of merits he used the name of a dead man and his wife and to claim he went on a fundraising event that was named after the genius that is Hal Finney.

If there is serious debate and the general view (it does not have to be overwhelming consensus) of senior and respected members is that his negative tag should be removed, I will remove it and replace it with another neutral this time to cover the AI but the original neutral tag for spamming and posting replies to himself will also stay.

Feel free to post here, the thread is self-moderated because I do not want the thread hijacked by a couple of clowns that have their own agenda and motives against me who will not add anything constructive.

As always, I am very open to change any positive, neutral or negative feedback I have given to any member. I have modified/edited/removed feedback before and I have absolutely no problem in doing it again as long as that is the general view in this case.

If a precedent for AI posting is made that is always must be a neutral tag (regardless of the number of posts being made) then in future all members should never leave a negative tag for AI posting because this thread would serve as a reference that a neutral tag would suffice.