Instead of Using AI for contenting, why not do this?
Yes... This. But before I go ahead, let me give you a back story
A big user on Hive has currently admitted to using AI to create their contents and unfortunately we know what follows after such a confession. However, if you do not already know, I will tell you: downvotes. It is inevitable.
However, this could have been resolved in about two minutes. The user could have instantly agreed to create more original content and that was it. However, it devolved into an endless debate over who is wrong or right.
The two parties are not wrong or right, but we understand that Hive has unwritten rules, one of which prohibits the use of AI for full content creation.
The user argued that Hive is decentralized, so they can use whatever tool they want to create their content, which is not entirely false. They are correct in the sense that decentralization gives you complete control over what you can and cannot do; however, the concept of endless and unlimited freedom breeds confusion and abuse.
On the other hand we cannot argue that Hive has some serious itchy fingers that wants to DV anyone at any slightest provocation. I mean, these people would rather shoot than ask questions. Unfortunately, the user was adamant that they were correct in using AI, and the downvoters were equally adamant in their decision to downvote them. Two alleged "rights" do not equal one actual right, which is what causes complete chaos and disorder.
To be honest though I think it's not a problem to use AI or reference it's usage. I have seen creators here who use it partially for images or other purposes, but I honestly believe it is best to slam a prompt on chatGPT and then copy and paste into peakD in under 4 minutes. It negates the concept of original content creating, and it makes even worse when rewards are involved.
It's unfair to the system in general, but the only problem with using AI for contenting on Hive is how the offender or the accused often handles the matter.
When confronted with AI offenders, I believe the first course of action should be diplomacy, but attempting to use decentralization as a justification will only lead to further confusion and disagreement. Nonetheless, this is how we are. When we are clearly wrong, we have a natural tendency to argue. People sometimes choose argument over making necessary corrections in order to protect their ego.
AI usage comes with unwritten rules, and anyone who has been here for close to 5 years (as that user has), must understand that protection or reputation is probably more important than short-term rewards gains.
However, there is another invisible sense of rightness that comes with being a Hive investor: the idea of being free to do whatever you want.
Yes, we understand that people like investors and customers add value to a product, business, or Blockchain through their money, presence, membership, and patronage, but these qualities can also give them an excessive sense of rightness, which can be harmful. Do we need people on Hive? Yes. Should we numb the concept of unwritten rules because of this? I do not know. It is like prioritizing an unborn child over the mother, or vice versa.
Diplomacy is a trait that is lacking on Hive
.....and this is due to the fact that many users, both accused and enforcers, lack these abilities.
It is understandable that we can not claim to be 100% decentralized, but show me a system that is, and I will wait.
I believe that using the "decentralization" defense in cases of plagiarism, AI usage, or spam will be ineffective, because the Blockchain requires both external and internal protection. The only issue is that a lack of diplomacy, as well as the presence of pride, ego, and stubbornness, causes it to frequently escalate.
So, what should you do instead?
Hive is a place where you can find accessible labour.
The social front of Hive is a semi-marketplace, a hub for interaction that leads to simpler solutions. What this creator should have done was find a user/creator who creates in the same niche as them, ask them to create on their behalf, and split the rewards 60/40 or 70/30 with them.
There are brilliant creators on Hive who will gladly take on additional content creation duties if they are compensated. This way, the author continues to earn while allowing another Hive creator to benefit, and the idea behind AI creation dies a significant death.
Win-win for everyone.
The reward system allows users to share their content rewards, which can be useful, particularly for those who do not have the time to create their own items. Hive can serve as a hub and marketplace for economic and social collaboration. This idea alone can stop the reliance on AI for content creation.
Interested in some more of my posts
Why Is the grind getting harder?
Monopoly Is the Death of Civilization
Survival: Choas and Scarcity
Crypto: Gut & meaningful Connections
What is the primary barrier to entry in Web3?
What Are Some Things You Should not Do During A Bull Market Year?
You made me realize two things. First, I have been too obsessed with the idea decentralization. It seems many have very different understanding of it within Hive and outside the network. This idea has always been a driving force in my network participation.
Second, Hive is not ready for AI revolution. AI tools have great potential to empower many. Developers getting parts of the coding work done using AI. It is frequently being used in business settings. Both AI and decentralized solutions will play significant roles in transforming societies.
I understand what you mean. AI is the revolution out there. I've seen DEFAI and other project leverage on AI for revolutionary Blockchain products.
I hope to see how this Blockchain will leverage on AI to move us further ahead, but then we know that AI for content is an unwritten rule and unfortunately it has been like this. Personally, I hope you don't get to power down and leave, I hope you stay and find a middle ground.
Hive is proof of stake... The who owning the bigger stake has more power over it. Hive is decentralized, there are no rules, I am free to do anything however other users are free to do the same... I am free to make 1 post per minute with AI generated content and I am also free to cast downvotes just because I don't like your avatar, other users are free to react to this ... It's true it becomes a mess like this, but it's not forbidden, so in the end the common sense is applied
I could argue on AI generated content, if you generate a post with a prompt on chatgpt, that's not correct, however if you do train a own model in local, spend a lot of time in refining, making loras and such then some monetization should be allowed
It becomes chaotic when downvotes are chosen over diplomacy. Yes. I agree it's proof of stake and decentralized but then slapping a prompt on chatgpt and copying the result and posting is not fair to others since it's just one pool. It's even more unfair when that author hits 100$ in reward with such content while original content creators make $5. It's not proof of reason enough..
I agree that training a model and putting in the work is different. However it becomes entirely chaotic as people are used to abusing freedom.
Yep, I agree with you, it's not fair, however fairness falls in the 'common sense' field 😅 not everyone follows it as it's not mandatory... Like in real life afterall
I don't really agree with this, it's the same as a dev setting up some kind of system for automated posts, lotteries/raffles, etc, and then expecting to get daily votes and rewards for a thing they spent some time on once/for a certain period. It defeats the consistent effort required by people putting in time, work and effort into creating posts that keep bringing users to consume them.
Sure one could say as long as posts are consumed it doesn't matter who/what created them, but just because you're now able to do this with less effort doesn't mean you should be valued/rewarded as much as you used to or compared to those who still spend a lot of time in creating posts of the same caliber/consumption in a purely non-AI way. It's proof of brain after all and it's important to keep author rewards focused on that, else we'll just end up having 10-100 accounts all taught by @tarazkp for instance to write like him and at that point we're rewarding one user 100 folds and less rewards are going towards other unique users which hurts decentralization through bad distribution.
Oh not spamming accounts, just yours... I say this because I made a lora myself for stable diffusion for images and it took me days to get a decent result, a lot of trial and error, I mean it was a lot of work... I guess one could burn part of the rewards?
In the end it's not very different from some posts I see now where a user posts a generated AI image and in the post he explains the prompt and the technology used, but it's the image the main content of such a post
View more
I think transparency is key. In Hive, it is frowned upon to use AI to create the content for you, and I honestly don't see that changing anytime soon. After all, the highest stake holders all share that point of view. I think its more fun and enjoyable to make my own posts instead of having ChatGPT write it out for me, but that might just be me. Honestly, I think one of the biggest faults is that people can't admit they are wrong. It sounds like the person just tried to justify what they did, when they knew it was unfair. Sure, Hive is decentralized, but stake matters when it comes to who is rewarded.
I feel like looking at the issue in a diplomatic way will relieve any tension and prevent further downvotes. The creator themselves have been here for a while and they're dedicated community members. I just think by now they should find a way to leverage what we have to make their contents.
AI debates chases people away and it can be disappointing to lose people because of AI debacles
I think the idea of contracting a creator to write for you is a good one. Everyone goes home happy.
A very good one, you just need to give them a certain % of the post reward and everyone wins.
@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 10/40) Liquid rewards.
Thanks a million 👍👍
You’re right.
Decentralization may offers more freedom but absolute freedom without clear rules can lead to chaos and misunderstandings just like you said.
That's just the issue. Decentralized isn't perfect, and we know absolute decentralization is not obtainable without choas
You should also talk about the extensive use of Grammarly, as that can show content to be written by AI
There's nothing wrong with using grammaarly to correct or refine your already written text.
That does sound like an alternative. But man, I wouldn't like Marques Brownlee or MrWhosetheboss have someone other than themselves "create" their videos or, even worse, make AI-generated videos of themselves. Likewise, I also wouldn't want that from anyone else whose content I'd like to consume or even myself. Heck, I'd dump Mark Manson if he didn't cuss a few times in his books because AI wouldn't generate "fuck that!" Besides, it's a rigmarole to me compared to being oneself. But sure, everyone can do what they want.
I believe there should be no point of discussion. Using AI and passing off content as your own is wrong in every way where it can be applied. Whether it's in Hive or at university trying to present a thesis.
Abusing the trust you have built up (by false means) makes the whole castle you have built fall apart. While AI is the future, we are in a context where human participation and engagement is valued, as well as how it adds value to the chain through original content. Decentralization, as much as it means freedom, cannot at the same time mean dishonesty.
I hope you're joking here, you can't be this stupid honestly. You know very well there have been cases like this and as no one likes to be lied to, or cheated by known accounts, you can imagine how these cases have ended.
What part of original content you don't understand? If it's not yours, don't use it, or quote it. Simple as that.
Wow, what you started with your post! 😀 I admit I haven't seen the drama (maybe for the best), but without knowing the context, using AI for full post creation (or much of it) and being one of the best rewarded authors on Hive (now that I found out who you were talking about) is not the best combination.
Otherwise, AI is a tool we all need to learn to use better, and to find acceptable ways to use it on Hive too. That's a technology here to stay and in the spotlight even more than crypto and blockchain are.
Basically what I wrote was misunderstood..
I taught government to high school students, so perhaps my definition of "unwritten rule" was misunderstood. Perhaps I was using my knowledge of government in defining "unwritten rule" but yeah, I checked wiki and it turned out I wasn't so wrong.
I worked a job the written rule is we all get to wear a uniform
The unwritten rule is that no one should have an informal relationship with the clients.
The first is hard copy, the second is rules we have at heart and kept to, but no central body was enforcing it. Just like it happens in a decentralized settings
I didn't intend to say "unwritten" like hey do whatever you want no one cares. The meaning I attached it was different in my own mind.
AI contents are unacceptable here, especially if they're done for rewards. However because of our decentralized nature, we keep the rule to at heart and follow it strictly. Ph112 and I have talked about it often.
I understood what you wanted to say.
Where Acid I think saw it differently was that he thought you meant these are some sort of "hidden" rules that no one is told about and are arbitrarily imposed. And most of them are not, they are simply common sense rules people should follow.
Sure, we do have overreactions, and those are more visible when the one overreacting has a big influence, but probably this is just a misunderstanding.
As for ghost writers on personal blogs I tend to agree with him, unless maybe the person is a celebrity or something. Otherwise, "personal" is not personal anymore. But they are ok on non-personal accounts.
Why do you keep saying "unwritten rule" so often? It seems quite obvious that if you haven't used your brain to generate content then maybe it shouldn't be rewarded. It's not really something uncommon or far-fetched to expect that to be the case. Your post seems to indicate as if you're shocked and surprised that that is the case, that a community of people from all over the world would be against someone suddenly starting to shit out a post per day using AI and less effort in geekgirl's case while increasing reward generation by many folds.
Is it really that surprising to you that curation should work this way? You're one of the most rewarded authors on hive with a reputation number that places you in rank #21 of all accounts and this is somehow an "unwritten rule" to you?
Let's take a look at your post again so people don't think I'm just overly aggro or trigger happy to downvote people as if it's a fun activity to do and benefits me in any way.
Why the fuck is this an unfortunate action? That we can protect our reward pool for low effort farms is unfortunate to you? How are things looking on steemit's and blurt's trending lately?
wow such amazing engagement of the trending posts of the same authors there daily, what a beautiful proof of brain project, definitely one of a kind
Or they could just openly separate text in the post to make it clear what is AI generated and what isn't and not be negative about receiving some downvotes if majority of the post is AI generated if they happen to be an author that receives a lot of autovotes (like myself and yourself) since they openly admit a lot of the content of the post was created with low effort - low effort such as having AI generate a lot of the content of the post and you just reading through it to make sure it's "true", etc. That's still low effort content and should be stated as such. It's not "who's right and who's wrong", it's about who's transparent and upfront about it and who's trying to keep it hidden and deceive curators that you're putting in more effort than you what they really are - that's what AI does, it helps you create things faster and at your convenience, it's not something that's up for debate if it's "wrong or right" if such content should be similarly rewarded as non-AI generated content.
They are free to do what they want, they can continue to post AI generated content as much as they want, no one can stop them. You're mixing investor and author here for unknown reasons, while you're free to do what you want, you're not free to receive rewards however you want. You're free to counter the downvotes if you feel AI generated content should be rewarded depending on who's posting and you're probably free to retaliate on anyone who disagrees with you.
I agree with the rest of the content on your post, just the beginning part kind of irked me the wrong way coming from a top hive author. It really shouldn't be that confusing at this point in time that if you suddenly started using AI to generate posts and get caught that you'll most likely face some downvotes if you're generally earning a lot of rewards but also if you're new and earning less rewards - same fate should face you.
There's many days I miss posting knowing I may miss out on a lot of autovotes - even if I forfeit many of them to projects, hive.fund, null, etc. I still don't post if I'm busy with other things. Could I just tell chatgpt to write 1000 words about a random subject I'm usually interested in and post that? Yes. Do I do it? No, cause I'm not a dumbass wanting to risk their reputation getting fucked beyond repair like some do and then on top of it try and justify and defend their actions. Just don't post if you don't have the time, others putting in effort will get your rewards although they're not going to notice much increase due to the size of active authors here daily.
PS. Your title is a bit weirdly formed, the "so" doesn't really fit in and it stands out as bad grammar.
I tried to say in my "title" that the author can find a creator to post on their behalf and share rewards with them instead of using AI
Yeah I got to that part in the post, I'm saying the title is weirdly formed, you can't use "so" that way in English, it just sounds weird/wrong. Maybe you meant "instead" instead and in that case it'd have to be placed at the end "why not this instead?" or "instead, why not this?".
View more
Now you broke his heart.
I tried to not be too mean here actually.