Here's a wild idea...

Keep stake-based voting for governance only. Make votes on posts and comments nothing more than votes, with no rewards attached to them.

Basically, if you want to reward someone, let it happen through donations using the tipping mechanics, or because you're selling a service or something. If you want to tip someone, it comes out of your own pocket.

I bet that alone would deter a lot of people from pumping out AI-generated content for rewards. Not completely, obviously, but I think it could bring it down considerably.

And there's always the DHF for funding things that actually benefit the ecosystem.

Then increase the APR to compensate for the APR that was previously going toward curation. You'd still have rewards going to users, but you'd remove the incentive to manufacture content specifically to attract stake-weighted votes.

It wouldn't solve every problem, but it would completely change the incentive structure.

My two cents anyways...

Edit: And honestly, I think changing the incentive is probably going to be a lot more effective than trying to figure out whether every sentence was written by a human.

Edit 1.2:

But I know the puto-crats of Hive won't like that because then they couldn't hover over Trending like hyenas, waiting for the next corporate-speak brown-noser to pop up so they can throw their giant votes at it and feel like they're personally curating civilization.

And obviously we can't have that. What would happen to all those carefully cultivated little mutual-admiration ecosystems where everyone votes everyone else, tells each other how brilliant and insightful they are, and then wonders why the same 47 accounts are permanently sitting at the top?

God forbid we take the money out of the vote and make people actually decide whether they want to support someone enough to reach into their own pocket. 😂

Nope. Much better to let the whales play Kingmaker with the inflation pool and then call it "curation."