Wrote a long comment earlier that could've probably been its own post but it kind of triggered me when I kept hearing the term "unwritten rules" regarding hive activities which I feel like should be quite universal stuff you shouldn't be doing in other places either.
The discussion here was regarding AI generated content of an author who recently had started producing content more often, which in and of itself is not something anyone should judge or be against, but finding out that this was due to them creating the content with the help of AI generation surely is not something we should accept as a community.
Now I understand if "unwritten rules" may mean "community guidelines" like hey it might be considered a bit in bad form to consume content, leave a comment but not reward the post with a vote if the post isn't rewarded a lot yet, etc. Or some other forms of etiquette that may not be obvious to everyone early on, but I feel like there are quite a lot of things that are generally quite universal and just because something is new, like AI technology here in this case, doesn't mean it's still uncharted territory where any and all morals are thrown out the window just because "it's not directly stated somewhere as a rule".
There's always going to be people who go against the grain on certain things.
I remember one of our onboarders who once onboarded a teacher from a school in their area and he was found to be copy-pasting content pretending its their own. It's kind of so bizarre and absurd that it stands out in my memory when this person has a job that is literally meant to look for such instances in their students and penalize them for it. It also brings forth the increasing use of AI help students are using in schools day to day which I'm sure is going to generate a ton of issues for the upcoming generations.
There was some discussions about this on Reddit a few days ago, imagine your surgeon in the near future has huddled through medschool using AI mainly to help them out pass tests and exams. Are you going to feel in good hands having someone operate on you who may have forgotten most of the things he proof-read chatgpt create? Or do you prefer someone who actually spent a lot of time and effort to at least cram those things to make sure they know them at least for a little while for the tests and later maybe revisit those memories again when it comes to practicing them.
Makes me think job applications are going to start require a longer trial period and extra checks in the near future due to AI cheating, unless they're going to bypass humanity all together for those positions.
Anyway, to get back to Hive.
It just bothered me that a top hive author kept saying things like this being an "unwritten rule" and that no one is "right or wrong" when it comes to this scenario. How is this the case?
We have a beautiful blockchain that enables us to reward any and all users with inflation by directing votes to them and instead of treasuring that it feels like we're becoming more and more accepting of more and more things that go against proof of brain.
"People are buying votes for themselves and their friends by sending Hive to this project in exchange for points" - oh well, it's too popular and obfuscated and can't be challenged and countered easily.
"People are getting votes because they delegate some HP to this project", - oh well, too many are doing it so what can we do about it really.
"People are starting to use AI to generate posts so they can continue to get the autovotes and increase their rewards/stake" - oh well, where does it state this is against the rules? We don't know if it's right or wrong to do so.
Like, what the fuck are we doing here? That same author started to suggest ghostwriting instead of AI generation for that particular author that does well vote-wise. As if that's a much better solution. Once you "make it", you can just hire someone to write the content for you and give him a share of the rewards. No, I'd rather give the original author all of the rewards and none to you cause you didn't fucking do shit.
Sorry, but these things annoy me quite a lot as it's a lot of unfair things we see in web2 compared to workers/employees and their bosses/companies and we're somehow trying to integrate that onto hive as well?
If I don't have time to post that day then I just don't fucking post, I don't have to post every day and I don't need to cry over rewards left on the table because I didn't have time. If you don't have time then you don't get rewards, it's that simple. You have to choose if the rewards are worth the time you're spending generating content, engaging with your readers and continuing to be you because you are the one being rewarded by stakeholders, autovotes, vote-trades or manual votes alike. If you're going to have a ghost writer write on your post for some reason then make it clear that's what's happening cause if you don't then you're kind of deceiving the community, curators and stakeholders by not making it obvious - same thing goes for AI generated content.
This is your personal account we're talking about, personal. If you have a brand, project or some kind of account where it doesn't really matter who is generating the content as long as it gets generated and consumed by interested parties, then for sure, go bananas on who writes it and who is involved.
Anyway, just some thoughts, here's the comment in question I left earlier, keep in mind I'm not trying to sound too upset or triggered, it's just a bit disappointing to hear people who've been here long enough who should know by now what curation is and isn't try and walk a thin line between what they'd prefer to be allowed and what not because maybe they've considered such activities themselves and don't want to spend the time, effort and originality to create content on a regular basis themselves. It has a nice comparison to the shitchain's trending page and lack of engagement if we keep allowing more and more shit activities to go rewarded here that weaken how curation is meant to be used: @acidyo/re-josediccus-swlrh9
Thanks for reading.
