Taking exactly what benefits your argument out of the whole post and scan it so it looks like an AI post It's what makes people look like cranky and old curators.

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4. Each section can be a post on their own as a standalone, and if you ran those at individual sections, you'd get a false positive flag. The fact that you even took a bite at Dennnmarc's post talking about his own project and using a tool to correct their grammar which also happens to trigger false positives should've been known prior. I don't rely on plagiarism checks or AI detection tools, I read the damn post and compare the output from previous posts, how the author comments, how they format their post, and etc. Not just copy paste their content and get a kick when the detection tool gets a flag.

Grammarly won't test positive for AI.

For now, AI written tools will eventually adapt to humans that feed it data on what seems to be quality made written outputs. While it may not written content that incorporated Grammarly suggestions, who's to say months down the road AI writing programs didn't use samples from Grammarly improved written content? Do you see the part where this argument isn't absolute. Grammarly safe from false positives, Quill bot not safe. The gray area will get wider.

The dumb part of my argument is thinking the focus was you being dumb rather than focusing on the part where the error that led to the misunderstanding was relying on the AI checker tool. Had you organically read the content and deliberate like a curator should, you'd figure out that it doesn't add up and a query on what tool was used to trigger a false positive would have avoided some room for error.

Going back to Dennnmarc's post, his post got downvoted by Helios.voter and it was a simple error of relying on quill bot, not with the severe degree of milking the reward pool for the easy money, the post had effort and the quillbot was only used to refine the grammar part and not replace the essence of the content.

Here's one area we can agree on, we're both interested in doing our part to help Hive but we diverge on our methods. I don't get paid for my time curating stuff here, that's a reality and anyone who says I do is right if they just check my curation rewards from the upvotes I give. But everything else, is just freelance work curating for kicks and giggles.

I don't want to be in conflict with your goals if you're out to do good for Hive. Since you mentioned the Helios team, here are my unsolicited suggestions if it even matters:

1. Read the post, don't copy paste instantly the text. Read the previous posts of the author, read how they comment, their wallet history, how they construct their English sentences, then ask the probing questions before jumping the gun.

I'm no expert at the English grammar but it's my primary conversational language compared to my own national language and local dialect (polyglot here). I have consumed enough English literature to at least spot essay written text that resemble AI which rings some red flags, the AI checker is just icing on the cake. What I look for in an author isn't to find fault, what I look for are areas where I think I could be wrong before making a serious accusation because the fall out of jumping the gun is more detrimental to my noble intentions than the rewards of doing the right thing. You get what I'm saying? people don't judge you first for what your intentions are, they judge your actions and sometimes you don't get that audience willing to listen if you jump the gun.

1. As a Helios being a curation account, you may need to diversify the pool of authors you vote for and expand the names so that the voting weights on paper don't get saturation.

HELIOS.VOTER
Created by coininstant on 2/19/2022

Month's Stats

PostCount: 5 | Ave Payout: $2.55 | Total Pending: $0 | Highest: $6.45
Comment Count: 475 | Unique Commentees: 62 | Blacklisted by: 0 | Muted by: 2

helios.voter ~ Top 10 Upvoted Users by Frequency for the past month:
Total upvotes: 444x

1. luizeba ~ 50x
2. p1k4ppa10 ~ 32x
3. asgharali ~ 32x
4. davidthompson57 ~ 31x
5. moeenali ~ 30x
6. zartisht ~ 27x
7. hiveclick ~ 26x
8. naythan ~ 24x
9. yameen ~ 24x
10. aliakbar2 ~ 22x

helios.voter ~ Top 10 Upvoted Users by Total Percentage for the past month:

1. luizeba ~ 15.62%
2. p1k4ppa10 ~ 10.00%
3. asgharali ~ 9.97%
4. naythan ~ 7.50%
5. aliakbar2 ~ 6.85%
6. hiveclick ~ 6.12%
7. moeenali ~ 5.45%
8. technico ~ 4.37%
9. michupa ~ 3.75%
10. burlarj ~ 3.74%

Frequency here means the number of times you voted the author for the past 30 days, percentage is the weight of the voting power you've thrown per author. In my arbitrary label, anything that reaches above 5% on a non-community account is a mark of favoritism. Frequency of votes is a sensitive tool to screen out favoritism, Percentage is a specific metric. What the records show on chain is that your votes aren't spread to a wider ecosystem enough and it's just circle jerking, and giving the amount of HP you have to work with, this adds weight to the claim.

The stats look different for accounts like OCDB and Discovery-it as curation accounts because their frequency and percentages are much lower for individual authors. With these numbers, and in my own biased opinion, Helios.Voter is on the borderline circle jerking, I left some room for doubt that maybe you aren't aware of the metrics behind the account activities rather than immediately call it out, note that small difference in approach in your rebuttal.