Who Made You a Moral Agent? AI-Assisted Writing Vs. AI-Generated Writing, Killing Decentralization, Thoughts on Leaving Hive, etc.

No One Will Read This 1.png

Disclaimer: You may not agree with everything I've said (or even anything), but if you're open-minded, some of them may make a little sense to you!

I've been banned from Hive Learners, and received massive downvotes on my recent posts because I admitted to something (I hope I don't lose out on my other recent posts by writing this with the assumption that all my contents have been AI-generated, but I just have to share this, please be kind y'all, I already lost out on them, so I write anyways!):

> I admitted to using AI to write a post (such a gross sin and misconduct?)

Currently, I've even been banned from Hive entirely (how outrageous! but downvoting on all my posts and removing the rewards is as good as asking me to leave ).

A lot of other person's have been banned too for similar issues/misconducts, and suspicions. I guess, writing about this openly makes me a target for closer monitoring and evaluation, but its okay, it is part of the experience/process (this time, I am writing about even more, it can't get worse than this can it?).

It is to most people here on Hive and like every new infiltrating technology, controversies are always built around it, and for Hive, I clearly understand the concerns, any reward earned should be earned with efforts, sufficient efforts put into it, and no through some fast means such as AI-generated texts. It is a valid argument, as some believe or have come to agree that posting AI-generated content easily translates to reward farming. Okay!

So, if I agree with all these, why am I making this post?
The point is, I've an argument and a defense.

Before going ahead to defend myself, I sincerely apologize to those it may concern in Hive Learners community; however, being sorry doesn't imply that I won't give a defense.

However, I have some points to make, let's begin:

First: Making a distinction between AI-generated and AI-assisted content

I believe only few have ever thought of making this clear-cut distinction, because it is a very grey area, you can easily go wrong. But let me help with my knowledge, experience and a bit of expertise.

AI-Generated Contents: Imagine typing in a set of instructions to Open AI's ChatGPT and lifting the words from it, word-for-word to your Markdown editor, then applying some markdowns and posting it to the community (sometimes, they actually spin it with other AI tools such as Quillbot to make it look a bit more authentic), whatever the case, as long as one's flow of thoughts, human-editorial inputs, and most importantly, a detailed line-by-line human review has not been done to this work, this is purely an AI-Generated Content, and I highly discourage this (even though AI is currently so good that it is hard to tell apart from human works).

AI-Assisted Contents: This is a whole different case altogether. For most person's, utilizing AI in writing is a planned and well-structured writing, and in the end, you feel the human input/touch. An intelligent writer would tell an AI what to do, instead of instructing the AI to do everything. This can involve creating outlines and letting AI fill in the gap, providing highly detailed instructions, writing up a rough draft and letting AI perfect it (think Quillbot), fact-checking AI, and making detailed editorial inputs. Things like this and more are all AI-assisted writing, and even before the days of ChatGPT, we all (hardly anyone exempted), have been using these tools to their advantage. So, having AI paraphrase, expand, or even generate a few sentences for a post, does it translate to an AI-generated content?

For me, I use Notion alot for notetaking, and preparing posts, and recently, it has introduced an AI writing feature as part of the premium plan, which I used to facilitate the creation of the posts that have led to my recent ban. Should I be penalized for paying for a tool that I intended to use in improving my workflow? I admitted to using Notion's AI writer when asked if I used AI for the posts in question. I wanted to reply dishonestly, but I decided not to, as I believe being dishonest in small things as this would translate to more dishonesty in the future.

I paid for tool that is as good as one, I used it, and admitted to using it, and now I am penalized for that? A classic case of honesty kills a cat🤣!.

image.png

Secondly: Think about Calculators, and Think About AI

The way we are handling the AI revolution today, is similar to how teachers in the 70s reacted to the introduction of calculators in the classroom. They believed strongly that calculators would make the child daft and unable to do basic maths.

While some people may still argue today that calculators are anti-human, I can safely bet that your calculator app on your mobile device remains one of the most used apps on your phone.

So, what is my point? AI is here to stay, and they have been here much earlier than you noticed, with early presence of them evident as far back as in the late 80s and early 90s. But, the community of writers are still fighting strongly the use of AI, while most of them use tools such as Grammarly, Quillbot, Notion, and others. The point is the AI generated contents are already here to stay and would get better (as long as more people use it, they keep learning and improving). Thus, these AI craze, can only last for a short-while, just like calculators.

So, are we simply angry that people are not putting in work but bringing better results? Or we are angry that people are finding easy ways to do what they have been doing?

The earlier we learn how to adapt them to our workflow, the better we become, and readier to move on to something greater. Remember, hardly anyone can be found using horses today for commuting or transportation?

If everyone is crazy about AI, you better join the craze, as your moral compass can't guide the whole world, and very quickly, you'll be left behind? Ask Nokia, Philips, BlackBerry, Yahoo and others how they lost relevance today!

Thirdly, Are We Simply Detecting AI with AI?

Is it not ironic that we are using the same machine that we believe to be highly disruptive against itself?

The fact is this, checking AI-generated content with AI itself is highly speculative, it is hard to get it right. It is hard (nearly impossible) to accurately use a machine of some hundreds of thousands (USD) or even less to check, access the credibility and/or authenticity of a machine worth billions of dollars.

With the above in mind, the fact remains that most results generated by tools that have been designed with the sole aim of reviewing written content to check whether or not AI generated them have just been their to collect peoples money while providing highly speculative results.

Is it Sapling, Turnitin, or other AI-detector tools as well as even OpenAI's AI Writing Detection tool? I've put them to a simple test and they or failed, and remain unsure, as there results are almost, always probable. Worse of it all, humans can only speculate on this, which leads me to the next point:

Fourthly, We are Just Speculating!

Just as other AI tools speculate on the authenticity of contents based on a specific set of instructions they have been giving, we also end up speculating on this too. Most times, we just look at a content and conclude, this is too good to be published by this writer (based on his history, as if we forbid personal development), thus, it must have been AI-generated. Or, we just guess and see if we can threaten/coerce the author into accepting (just as I was).

The fact was that, if I weren't simply being honest, no "AI-detection tool" would have been able to say whether or not the post was AI generated (because first, it wasn't AI generated, it is a result of my hardwork and mental efforts). So, how long do we want to continue assuming and blaming? Or how much longer do we want to continue speculating on the authenticity of people's work?

Fighting against AI is a failed battle

Assumption still remains the lowest level of reasoning, and in this stage of human development and growth in IT, both humans and IT tools are simply assuming.

So, instead of this, why not stick to what works? Ensuring that a content is plagiarism free and it makes sense in the context of which it was presented and/or delivered. Or better still, think of better ways to make the process more tasking yet, more fulfilling. Why not give weight to videos and other form of writing that could be achieved more organically through human inputs that less organically through AI inputs?

Or much better, stick to having community curators do their jobs.

Fifth, If Using AI to Generate Content or Aid Content Generation is Morally Wrong, What About Receiving Autovotes? Is it not worse?

Don't get me wrong, I would love to receive some sweet autovotes on my account, but that doesn't take from my argument.

Most people being tail-tagged for committing AI content frauds are usually small accounts like myself who do not belong to any cartel or whatsover, so no autovotes for me (Shame on me! Lol!).

So, most often than none, the rewards farming that is usually a source of concern is usually not a thing, because these authors get very little or no votes from their posts, sometimes, they get voted in a ratio of 10:1. In fact, for some of us, our lifetime worth of votes is what a person receives in just 10 posts. But no one complains, because it is clearly a democratic process, everyone has rights to choose who they will endorse.

But auto-voting entirely defeats the whole idea of a community-driven decentralized social network. We all have two basic roles here on Hive, we are either creating or consuming content. It is based on your perception of what you've consumed, then you give a feedback (engagement) and a corresponding amount of votes (endorsement).

However, engagement is being relegated (and taken out of the picture) to the background for most people, and endorsement is being automated. So, you see posts that would earn 100USD worth of votes, with no comments very few engagements. However, this is already part of the system and nothing or no one can change it (I hope not!).

While it is a norm, doesn't make it morally correct.

We all crave for autovotes, and I'll heartily seize any opportunity I get to grab some (which I've already earned, but this time, downvotes). However, if somethings, even more grievous, have had some free passes, and some persons based on their status and connections are getting free pass on similar offenses, I believe, the just course would be either offer everyone the same amount of scrutiny and penalties, or allow everyone to enjoy the same amount of opportunities (see if we won't do better).

What is the reward for writing?

When an effort to reward ratio is 10:1 for some, and 20:1 for others, people will tend to double the efforts to increase the rate of the rewards, and this would lead to cutting of corners.
The fact remains that no one is entitled to any votes, but still, we are all here for the votes (Lol!).

Hivewatchers?

It is quite disturbing to have such an entity like Hivewatchers designed to de-democratize and carryout relentless censorship on a decentralized social platform.

To me, at this stage of my knowing and stay on the chain, I can only reach one simple conclusion, Hivewatchers is a cartel that has been formed to ruthlessly demonstrate unnecessary power and control over individuals for offenses that could be easily resolved. They offer first-time offenders the same punishment they give to habitual offenders and have a long list of followers, who are on the rampage to witch-hunt fellow Hive members to gain favour from Hivewatchers, in form of rewards and a free pass on their own crimes.

To appreciate more why this entity is anti-democratic, simply look at the requirements you must go through to restore your account to nomalcy after they have pounced on an individual.

Hivewatchers and their cohorts believe that once you have been found on the wrong, you have no place giving a defense, you simply have to accept what they throw at you. Their number on tactic is humiliation.

Because they always want to humble the next person to demonstrate the fact that they wield absolute power, they never go back on their judgement regardless of all reasoning. Making their appeal process to me, very counterproductive.

Communities beware! While you're busy trying to onboard more people to Hive, Hivewatchers and their cohort of reporters and intelligence are busy witch-hunting and sending individuals out of Hive. I smell Steemit here!

What happened to community moderators? Hive Watchers are simply trespassing, and the system is paying them for an unnecessary service. To me, Hive Watchers should be more concerned about activities that happens on Hive outside a community's purview, and allow communities to handle offenses and administer punishments accordingly. But communities are now becoming too naive, and instead of following the normal route for conflict resolution, they just hand you over to the Watchers to end it all, and make Hive unbearable.

I think I'll stop here!

Don't get me wrong, cheating remains morally wrong, but who defines what is cheating? and when could someone's actions be referred to as cheating? And are you entirely guilt-free to pronounce judgement on a person? (or you're just trying to look active?).

I surrendered myself to the judges, and was sentenced for it! But I just wish, we will all be as diligent to look for ways to support each other as much as we're diligent to point out errors and faults. No one ever saw my highly organic contents that have been highly researched and posted but packing up dust votes here on the chain. Just a few have ever commended my efforts at least for quality works I've put in over time, predating the rise of the current AI machine, and even beyond. And only a few cared about my moment of losses that facilitated this action that led to the recent ban, LOL! I lied, someone has been watching all along, but instead of appreciating my efforts, and helping me go from dust votes to even a dollar worth of votes, they were busy finding that one error to nullify all efforts (and gain favour from the Watchers); and good enough, I gave him the reason, and even admitted to it in all honesty.

It is a long one, and I drop my pen now! I'll be in the comments!

In the end, I believe it is high time we reconsidered the standards we need to set in relation to AI and blogging on Hive!

I think it's high time we started having an open discussion about Hive, AI and the self-acclaimed custodians of Hive, Hivewatchers. Communities should take charge! We are community-driven.

I for now don't know how easy it would be to continue on Hive, if things continue like this, I may have no option that to leave the chain for the Watchers and that is after over 2000 posts/comments later!

H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
3 Comments
Ecency