Topic: Shouldn't there be a forum rule against obvious AI-generated content? - page 3. (Read 1202 times)

Open source code, which most of these packages are, give you full rights to edit without credit.

That is true.

But for a programmer to say that was simply ruining his career, because saying that he did something that in reality he is not capable of doing, is not very positive. It's better to say that you used a certain tool and receive credit for knowing how to use it very well, than in the end losing all credibility.

If the code you use, edit and publish doesn't require to credit the original author, that's fine when it comes to copyright laws. But if you pretend you wrote all of it, it's still plagiarism.

That's what AI does too.   The content is originally mine, it's just fixing it for me.

I sometimes use similar tools like grammerly, quilbot (mostly) or a typewriter, when I'm writing a long post. (You know, just to make sure that there are no grammatical or punctual errors. ). Does that makes my post a plagiarism? Umm, I don't think so. The content was originally mine, I just fixed it. 

afaik, if you are not the original author and don't mention the source, it will be plagiarism. AI is basically giving you content that you never wrote, and people are just using it as their own. So it's plagiarism. 

Lolz😃.. You actually sounds funny.


But however, using an A.I generated content is one thing that shouldn't be frown at, as it adds no value to forum discussion, since they are not genuine and coming from a user who has got experience, but simply robot. And as such, just as many people suggested, it's punishment should be treated just like that of "plagiarism" with a temporary or permanent banned, whereas if the account seems to have been of higher rank, you just red-tag the account with (i.e negative Trust), so as not to be able to partake in signature campaign ever again.

In programming things will be a little different.

First, as mentioned, a lot of content can be developed based on Open Source code. Some of this code requires credits to be given, others do not.

Second, the code generated by AI is public code, that is, no one can demand exclusivity. So, in certain cases it will be the same as using public code libraries. It is then up to whoever uses this code to validate, verify and analyze whether everything will be correct and functional. In the end, several details must be evaluated to understand whether or not the script can be considered yours.

One thing is certain, even the code generated by AI does not invalidate not having programming knowledge, otherwise you are exposed to many bugs.

Writing a text, 100% by AI, is something completely different. Because you don't need any specific level of knowledge for everything to "work".

Okay, let me ask you a question. If I read some information over the internet, I memorize it, and then I rewrite that information somewhere else with the same meaning but different wording, etc. Will that be plagiarism? I don't think so. The AI models do the same thing. They don't copy and paste exact words or sentences from other sources, they take information from the data that is fed to them, process that information, create a different version of it, and give it to you as a user asking for it.

The point is, that if you, as a user, take that information from ChatGPT and then post it as your own, you are doing a wrong thing because it's not your work.

There is one more thing. Experiment with ChatGPT just for reference. Create a prompt that would generate some text about anything you want, and use the same prompt with two different accounts or on two different devices. You will see that the answer might be the same by meaning but it won't be the exact same by wording.


What about the ones that are reported in threads with proofs and everything? If it's about AI-detecting websites or applications that mods might think aren't accurate, one can be wrong, if multiple detectors are giving the same results, that should prove it.


Hey, you are probably confused about this, but let me tell you, the word "unofficial" in the title of Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ thread is an adjective used for the word "list". So it's basically saying that the list is unofficial but it's for the official (you can see it written in brackets in the title) forum rules.  

You mean you want an official rule for AI-generated content when the forum itself does not have an official rule that governs anything but unofficial ones? Regardless, I believe there is a reason for that, nevertheless, it's a good call to distinctively define the forum's view on AI-generated content.

For me, I am confused about this and might be the reason why the forum is silent about it after many reports about it. AI is being used in this advanced age where even reputable companies and educational sectors are mastering its work. Are they not? So, to take a side here is so technical. It's good that moderators have been doing a great job about it at their discretion and it's our duty to report more of such content that we suspect and give moderators the benefit of the judgmental doubt to deliver the right verdict.

I am humbled that the industry is spending billions to help me.  My left fingers are slow, and I can copy/paste much faster than typing. 

This bots are not inventing that from thin air, they are using copy-pasting and combining what other human being wrote before in different websites.
Basically all AI bots are doing the same thing as a human who is doing plagiarism but than makes little changes and mistakes to make it more human-like and harder to detect for plagiarism.

Because it's not always easy to detect them with high percentage of accuracy.

Maybe only for people who are lazy and can't use their brain for thinking and fingers for typing.
If those AI bots open their source code you would found written source of every sentence and word written and copied from human beings.

I don't believe that these websites are plagiarizing anything, even if they don't credit the thousands of authors on each project.    They are not changing the code, just using it.

One thing is for sure - the lawyers will make their money on changing terms alone.   Next time my word processor suggests "you are" instead of "your", I don't want to have to credit the software, or the people that wrote it.   

I think it's also worth asking why they don't ban those who have plagiarism found, and it doesn't relate to AI. And only after that can we start talking about a complete ban on those who use AI to create posts.
Probably because the number of users on the forum is not increasing, the moderators are protecting everyone, hoping that people will respect the forum rules.

I know members will be reporting AI-generated content and the users being reported should get some punishment along with deleting their posts.


About plagiarism, I don't think a user is banned if it's proven that they have been involved in plagiarism, but when it comes to AI-generated content, users aren't getting banned, only the posts are deleted. What you said about traffic doesn't make any sense because you wouldn't let people keep breaking the rules only because you don't want to lose some traffic.


I understand, I know that AI-generated content is plagiarism but it's plagiarism on the part of the bot providing that content, and the reason why I believe it's wrong to use those texts as someone's own is because they are not referencing that they have used an AI model or a bot to generate that. If I use ChatGPT to generate a code or anything, and I mention that I have used ChatGPT to do this, it shouldn't be a problem, but if I don't do that, it means I'm trying to use that thing as my own and that is wrong. I understand it's plagiarism of a sort, but we currently don't have strict rules regarding it, hence this thread.

Those who say AI-generated content falls under the plagiarism rule in the forum rules list, I want to ask them the same question asked by LoyceV earlier. Why aren't users who are reported with evidence getting banned? If someone is found guilty of plagiarism and there is a rule against it, the person should get punished for that. Having their posts deleted and leaving them to keep doing what they have been doing isn't how it should be dealt with if it falls under a forum rule and they are breaking it again and again.

As an example, you can look at the post history of this guy, it's the same user that I referenced in the OP. I reported some posts from this user yesterday, all of them were AI-generated, and both I and LoyceV, reported him in the AI Spam Report Reference Thread but I upon checking his post history again today, I can see that the posts reported have been deleted but he did a few again after that, without getting any punishment for it. Why?

If this falls under plagiarism, the punishment should be the same for it, and if it doesn't, there should be a separate rule and punishment for it. That is the basic reason why I started this thread.

It is quite easy to determine with 100% certainty that someone has plagiarized because you have the user's post and the source from which the content was copied - noting that there were cases where some users copied their content from blogs or other forums without citing the source, which then it's definitely not plagiarism if they can prove it.

On the other hand, you have a lot of AI detectors, some of which are very bad and give a lot of false detections, which is why I accused one forum user of using AI, which was not the case. Therefore, one should be careful when using such tools and always use at least three reliable tools before making a final conclusion.

I think that the mods are very careful in the case of AI reports, because there is a possibility that someone will be permanently banned due to bad detection, and that's why you need more evidence that someone is really using AI in order to get a permanent ban.

I would personally try to influence all members (personally new ones) with a clear message that the use of AI can lead them into problems and that they should think twice about using it on the forum. Of course, there are users who use AI to create images and that's perfectly OK and can be fun, as is the case in WO sometimes.

I'll show you an example. OP, you are misinterpreting your guesses about where the AI texts come from. And when we see this kind of behavior, where there are a lot of similar phrases torn out of a million articles on the Internet and collected together in another, next answer, it still does not belong to the person who copied and pasted it.
And yes, such posts can be seen not only by those who use AI, but also by those who often check such posts.
Just answer, can this post not be considered plagiarism when the tool shows other sources from which the sentences were torn out?

It's text written by someone (or something) else while the user pretends he wrote it by himself. That's plagiarism by definition.
The "AI" tool itself is highly debatable too: I've seen many accusations of them using unlicensed input data to train it, and they don't credit the real authors.

If by "the forum" you mean theymos, I don't think he cares about the amount of traffic. If anything, low-quality traffic isn't worth much.

It's probably still plagiarism, but from ChatGPT. They take bits and pieces of other people's work without crediting anyone.

Some even earn Merit, but I'm much more disappointed by the number of people responding to them. Even on the tech board: what's the point of responding to a made-up problem?

Oh, the definition card.   I trump that with the details card:  An AI does not have thoughts.   AI is a tool much like Grammarly or a typewriter.

(forgive the sarcasm, you know I love you)

The chatbot AI users never credit their posts to ChatGPT or other AIs because they intend to steal contents created by ChatGPT, AI and make it like their own content.

If they are in a campaign, campaign manager will not pay for posts credited to ChatGPT, AI.
If they are newbies, forum members will not merit these posts if there is credit to ChatGPT, AI.

Intention of ChatGPT, AI users is clear, and they don't forget to add credit but they want to hide source of the content.

So it's plagiarism.

They can use AI generated images in their posts for fun, like memes, but if they use these images for their participation in art contests, it's not acceptable.

I disagree. Let's look at the definition:


I don't care if people post AI generated images (unless they are extremely bad to the point of being offensive). I doubt most other people care either. It would be tacky for the person posting the image to say "I made this using my own brain," or imply something similar.

Let's say for instance someone designing a series of Bitcoin collectibles uses AI-generated images to "showcase their work." Its not their work at all -- it doesn't even exist. This would not be a particularly trust-inspiring act. Its all about the context in which AI-generated material is being used. If its being used to meet shitpost quotas, I'm against it.