Topic: AI usage, 3rd time in a few months - page 3. (Read 1225 times)

You're using the feedback system to your advantage because of what some random "test" AI detection websites claim? Did you read the posts the OP posted and the ones I quoted? Tbh, all of this is wrong. I don't care about sig payment because I make x5 as a VIP wager. My reputation means a lot. I'm officially leaving Stake.

If anyone can mention 1 AI chat bot that can produce 100% discussion on topic, test run it and show results I have $50 for you.

@borovichok this is not the first time you have accused of such act and all can't be lie and if I were you as KingsDen said, I would stopped everything connecting to internet and AI materials and if possible delate the app from my device and reply to threads with my bare head with looking or asking questions from anywhere. And is it that the borovichok can't use his brain to write and reply comments because this is longer funny. It is not that we should not use AI to know information but not to use them in your writing. You can read the answers from AI and know the story and not to use it in your own. There are different threads people can reply to. And if you don't know or understand the particular thread then you leave and look for the one you understand and reply. This borovichok story is not a pleasant one because warning has been given to him not once and not twice.

This is nice to hear from you, then if what you are saying is the truth then let the IT personnel in your campaign that test running all your posts every week before payment should come and make statement so that all these accusations will stopped. And if you are still using the " Quilbot and Grammarly to cross check your spelling before posting stop it so that you use your raw English and nobody will accused you of using AI. Stay safe.

What the user is doing sucks and if not discouraged it can lead to a spamfest on the forum and the spammers will not need to put in any effort at all to run an account farm. I however still think this is the wrong tool to combat it and wrong use of the trust system. Any campaign manager that ignores the neutral feedbacks and still pays for those AI generated posts will likely ignore negative feedbacks too and continue to encourage the user.

The trust feedback cannot block all the holes in the forum moderation policies or it starts to lose its own relevance.

I reported them as well and seem to be deleted. He's someone worth banning, he had plenty of chances to stop, but he thinks he's a smart ass and invincible. If I were hin, I'd stop the first time I was caught, and I'd be willing to understand and forgive that it was a one time thing. He has crossed every boundary.I'm inclined to believe that it's a very possible scenario. I haven't investigated if the said user has any addresses posted publicly, since Stake is paying on the casino account directly.

It must be tedious to write 70-80 posts per week, he has likely made it a team sport to cope.

I don't know why that member hasn't been banned, but I'm 99% sure he's using AI because he can't write for shit and is here just to get paid.  The latter has been true for a lot of people for years, but with advances in AI....I don't know, it's kind of scary.

The only reason I could ever see for Theymos banning signature campaigns voluntarily is if bitcointalk evolved into an AI-driven spam forum worse than what it is now, because at that point all of the idiots would have driven out the good members--and it's scary to me because I'm not sure how close it's coming to that.  Campaign participants are basically taking writing jobs, right?  Well, if you need the money and the easiest way to go about getting it is to have an AI program generate some posts because you can't write (or have nothing to say), it's hard to believe it's not going to happen on a grand scale.

Ban all members suspected of using AI, that's my opinion.  Otherwise this entire forum is in jeopardy.

Theymos needs to make a rule ASAP if that's the case.  We've already had a problem with shitposters doing it the hard way for years, so if they can decrease the effort needed to crank out nonsensical crap exponentially, then that's another problem that needs to be nipped in the bud as fast as Big Boss can write up a rule.

Edit:

I tagged the member in question.  When there's no rule in place to deal with this sort of shenanigans, one must use the tools available to them to combat it.

Someone sent me this link. Had this board ignored.

I'm not sure what else to say; I've stopped using Quilbot and Grammarly to correct my wording and sentences, and all of my posts are topic-related. I respond to the post I quoted, without a doubt. I've never seen any of my football-related posts got in this AI mess.

Have you guys ever bothered reading the post I quoted/replied to? Are my responses not in any way related?

There is an IT person on the stake campaign who runs our posts on certain AI softwares, and so far my postings have met the requirements. I don't use AI, the few percentage found in my history were as a result of some of the AI powdered tools ( quilbot and Grammarly) I used.

I will focus on only football discussion because I'm becoming a merit grabbing topics now. Most of my gambling posts carries my real life experience I didn't know AI could do that too..

Having my post deleted as spam is normal but tagging the report as AI report  for cheap score is wrong. I'm not lazy and I'm not using AI bot. I don't know how those tools works. Standing alone on something you didn't commit is so hard man.

Mixed of AI and Human report doesn't make any sense to me. Writing first paragraph with human and second paragraph with AI ? That's too much work for anyone. My first paragraphs are okay to make a good post, the second paragraphs are personal or general opinion. ( Little attachment)

Changes to rules take time to be implemented. So far there is no rule regarding AI generated posts so those who use it are pretty much free to use it the way they like, except they are on a campaign which has local rules regarding it.

My guess is if we have more cases related to abuse of artificial intelligence, the admin will make a decision regarding its use on the forum.

That campaign have one of the biggest collection of spammers in this forum, so I am not really surprised at all to see that manager is not doing their job correctly 
And besides that, if any member is detected of repeated using of AI generated posts he should be banned from forum, not just from that campaign.
Using AI generated content should be considered very similar to plagiarism.

If he didn't really use AI, why he keep repeat his mistakes over and over? that's a sign he don't want to learn.

Now he already have 6 neutral feedback on his account, but it's not gonna affect anything.

Usually this kind user will learn after:
1. Kicked from the campaign
2. Received a negative feedback
3. Get banned (temp/permanent)

If I were Borovichok and I am using AI to generate posts, and I am eventually caught upto 3 times and got lucky to remain in my campaign and also not banned, I will definitely desist from using AI and consider myself lucky for not only  getting a second chance but also a third chance. But for Borovichok to come out more than once to defend himself gives me the impression that he is not using AI. Maybe he discovered some kind of app that enhances his grammar and make it look more sophisticated or AI like.

At this time, my sincere advice to Borovichok is to desist from whatever he is using to put his account in danger and suspicion. Just be yourself and be at peace with the forum members.

Have you read the thread opened by nutildah? If you say so, then it is completely clear that before we accuse someone of using AI tools, we check on several sites. And some sites are almost always NOT wrong.
If you looked at this topic more often, you would be convinced of this.
I'm sure these tools weren't invented by people like you or me . This is done by people who know a lot about it.

In addition, a person who posts news without a link is most often banned. And in this particular case, no red marks are required, since copying is direct plagiarism, followed by punishment, namely a ban.

I have no words. I spread my hands. You don't read the entire post and people's responses.

Correct me if I am wrong, I have came across where the said poster made a reply to either any of these #2 and #3 saying that he also tried to check their post and the AI detector detects their post to be AI generated, although I don't know how true is this. But I will also like us to check your personal post to know if the AI detector could still give you same result, this is a tools developed by human like you & I and there is no guaranteed that this tools is giving you an absolute results apart from give a guess feedback whereby people would start painting someone profile as red or giving them neutral tags for a common mistake done by the tools issuing out random results.

I think to me the one that should be more effective on members should be a copy and paste content without any link linked to the original author maybe if someone continue to repeat this kind of post without referencing the original creator or author then you can as well tag such person as a plagiarism user who does not make or create it's own original content than stealing someone else as his personal post. However, I am not against anyone doing his find on those that uses AI to post but we should also try to check most of our personal post to see the results if it appears the same then we can say the tools is giving a random answer to people's post, though I hardly use those tools to detects people post.

Does bitcointalk consider AI generated post here in bitcointalk as plagiarism? If yes, he's candidate for a permanent ban. I think the forum admin needs to step up for this issue because it's not just one person who uses AI generated posts; it happens every day here on Bitcointalk. It's time to make forum rules regarding this matter.

I would be inclined to exactly that theory, considering that the manager wholeheartedly defends exactly such shitposters who could actually be part of the alt network that the company bought to promote itself on the forum. I wouldn't be surprised if they then hired one or more people to manage that network, and of course they use AI and paraphrasing to do their job.

It is obvious that such a way of promoting pays off, because the investment in buying alt accounts is returned in the way that they do not actually pay unique members to advertise them. Unfortunately, apart from the persistent report such post and the hope that some of the global mods will react with a ban, red tags or flags are quite ineffective for such things.

But then you have to report his post within the same week of writing, and the moderators have to handle it in a week. If you report his old posts and if old posts get deleted, it does not affect his current week's post count. He will keep posting this AI-generated content as long as those posts do not get removed before his campaign manager counts them for payment. The way their manager handles the campaign, it's easier to post hundreds of posts and then remove them after a week once the payment is done. He does not have any problem if moderators delete his old posts.

If moderators successfully delete his posts, then eventually he will have no choice but to write his posts rather than use AI. The subscription quota is quite large, so in addition to posts that may be deleted (and he should understand this sooner or later), he will have to also write additional ones. And this, I think, is quite tedious. You just need not stop complaining about AI posts; the moderators will get tired of it, and they will eventually cool his agility.

Didn't he get a negative tag before for the same offence? It's not like he is doing it for the first time, and he does not know that he can get more negative tags if he repeats the same thing again. He got negative feedback, and JollyGood removed the feedback later. Yet again, this user is using AI to generate posts to make money. Stake campaigns have always been full of spammers, and it is no surprise they don't care about what their participants do. Having a JollyGood is good for the community. Such users deserve negative feedback for their repetitive offences.

Even though the Stake campaign manager has said they are against the use of AI for writing posts, clearly that was a lie, as this user has now had 22 posts deleted as spam. Here's some of my more recent reports against them:



I have reported the posts you mentioned above as well, which are also clearly AI-generated. Regardless of the opinion of their campaign manager, this user deserves to be banned.

As far as I understand, the manager of the Stake campaign is satisfied with borovichok's work. It has already been tagged several times for spam and the use of AI tools for writing posts here. The position is stuck here.

I wouldn't pay attention to him anymore, the only question is whether he finally deserves a red tag. Although I think that even the red tag will not change much. Stake is OK with these kinds of posters.

OP, maybe you could have just added this to the existing @nutildah topic, I think this user does not deserve this number of open discussions.

Not long ago, user @nutildah, known for his campaign against AI content reported Stake's user, borovichok for AI usage in his posts, a little more than a month after user @JollyGood reported him for the same offence, along with a few other observations regarding his behaviour in regards to his posts. Thread found here.

However, this user doesn't seem to understand, or doesn't want to, or simply believes that everyone else is plain stupid, there's no other explanation. This, is going to be the third report in less than 3 months.

I could certainly find more posts, but I already spent enough time. It seems that he's still using a mixture of AI and some writing of his "personal opinion" to make it look more human-written, even though there's a distinctive difference in the grammar and tone of writing between his text and AI's.

I don't understand why in less than a month from the previous report, this user is resorting to AI usage, a third offence. We've seen other accounts get banned due to AI usage, but he's still using it like nothing happened, while there was no response from Stake manager in regards to the report against borovichok?

Another explanation may be that multiple people use the same account, or multiple accounts, which is why you can notice differences in his posts, in terms of writing style, grammar and AI usage. It's extremely evident in posts that he's expressing his opinion and in others that actually require some knowledge to answer, in terms of definitions, technical specifications etc.

Post 1.
Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
HiveModeration: The input is: likely to contain AI Generated Text 96.5%
Sapling.ai: 100% Fake
GPTZero:We are moderately confident this text is a mix of ai and human
GPTZero basically claims that the first paragraph is human written, but the second is fully written by an AI.

Post 2.
Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
HiveModeration: The input is: likely to contain AI Generated Text 99.9%
Sapling.ai: 100% Fake
GPTZero:We are moderately confident this text is a mix of ai and human (First sentence of second paragraph is supposedly human written).

Post 3.
Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Sapling.ai: 100% Fake
GPTZero: GPTZero:We are moderately confident this text is a mix of ai and human (First sentence of second paragraph is supposedly human written, the rest fully AI written, difference in grammar can also be noticed).

Post 4.
Mixed results on detectors.
Sapling.ai: 65% fake
GPTZero: 5/8 sentences are AI written.
Difference in grammar can also be detected throughout his post and in comparison with other posts.

Post 5.
Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
HiveModeration: The input is: likely to contain AI Generated Text 99.9%
Sapling.ai: 100% fake
GPTZero: We are highly confident this text was ai generated 97%

Post 6.
Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
HiveModeration: The input is: likely to contain AI Generated Text 99.9%
Sapling.ai: 100% fake
GPTZero: GPTZero:We are moderately confident this text is a mix of ai and human (3/5 sentences, first paragraph AI written)