Torch letter - Given the occasion... / Brandbrief - Aus gegebenem Anlaß…
Deutsch im Anschluß...
Ever since there have been AI tools that can be used by the public to create texts, ever since professors at universities, teachers at schools and yes, even moderators here on the Steem, have been trying to recognise and ban their use.
So far, so good and so honourable: whoever publishes here should be able to express in their own words what is on their mind. After all, we want to be bloggers and authors - so it would be a fatal signal if we let a little machine do the work for our texts. It would have nothing whatsoever to do with creativity or even the art of writing...
The fact is that very few people are aware of the mechanisms that underlie both the creating and the detecting AI. The AIs, such as the ChatGPT, use extensive texts written by humans as a database and basis for their "own" commissioned works. These are thus virtually composed of common phrases and elements that humans have used by the thousands and thousands in advance.
The AI reassembles something from this multitude of existing scraps according to the specifications he receives. This is not creative. It's diligence, which it can do quickly thanks to its computing capacity - a human being would take an infinitely long time to do the corresponding research…
And now a detector tool does nothing but search a text to be checked for such standardised phrases. And it is quite natural that it finds such! In almost any text that is orthographically and grammatically correct, but does not shine with any particular originality. If we are honest here, this is ultimately true of many of the contributions here on the Steem! They are linguistically okay, and thanks to various correction programmes, they are not objectionable in form and execution. Whether they were written by a human or by an AI cannot be determined with such a tool!
In addition, studies have shown that especially young people, who are increasingly confronted with AI-generated texts, get used to their neutral writing style. How, then, is a tool supposed to make a reliable distinction?
Dear Community moderators and admins: please stop pillorying people for things that you simply cannot prove! Because what these tools fatally spit out as a "diagnosis" is simply not reliable and usable. And thus your actions, which consist of denouncing and marginalising, are nothing other than behaviour that damages one's reputation and defamation. Seriously, you call someone a fraud in public, online. These are criminal acts! Doesn't it occur to you that you could be prosecuted for that? This is not a legal vacuum, even if it sometimes looks like one. And the netiquette that is generally invoked in Internet forums applies first and foremost to you, of course! If you, as the responsible persons, do not take care to behave correctly, why should the members do so...?
From my point of view, this bad tendency has increased with the demanding attitude to keep the posts within the Communities AI-free and to "check" for it. Yes, at the beginning of the current development, the Steemit team explicitly pointed out to guard against excessive and abusive use of AI. In the meantime, there have been enough indications that it would be better to moderate and restrain oneself for the reasons listed above. Assaults are certainly not in anyone's interest! I will go so far as to say: AI will destroy Steemit as a blogging platform in the long run! However, not through AI-generated texts, but through continuous false and humiliating public accusations. No serious author will put up with that!
I would indeed welcome a clear announcement from the sc team that this nonsense is to be expressly avoided. I would even like to see the conspicuously aggressive labelling and condemning moderators, admins and finally Communities withdrawn from all support. They achieve exactly one thing with their way of acting: to scare away good authors. Steem can hardly afford that if it wants to survive as a platform and as a cryptocurrency.That doesn't work with the countless "cheap" posts that are made every second just for the sake of a few votes and are characterised by a lack of content.
Please: look more intensively for plagiarism instead - at the moment you generously let some people have their way...! And take care of the many abusive multiple accounts, the interconnections within the various Communities and between their leadership cadres. Please regulate the things that can be regulated, because they can be traced without a doubt!
Maybe, just maybe, the Steem would end up being a better place ;-)) One where the good writers would be happy to come and publish because they would be spared all the rubbish described. Hope just dies last...
cc: @chriddi, @stef1, @visionaer3003, @o1eh, @patjewell, @ubongudofot, @damithudaya, ... - You are moderators and admins who, in my observation, always deal with any suspicions in a factual, correct and solution-oriented manner. You certainly also know the others; the ones I am aiming at with my post. But they won't read it, I'm afraid. Please help me to get to the root of the evil...! Thank you!
@weisser-rabe, Acrylic on wood, someday in 2013
Deutsche Version:
Seit es für die Öffentlichkeit nutzbare AI-Tools zum Formulieren von Texten gibt, seitdem versuchen Professoren an den Universitäten, Lehrer an den Schulen und ja, auch Moderatoren hier auf dem Steem, deren Gebrauch zu erkennen und zu verbannen.
So weit, so gut und so ehrenhaft: wer hier veröffentlicht, sollte schon mit eigenen Worten ausdrücken können, was ihm auf der Seele brennt. Wir wollen immerhin Blogger und Autoren sein – da wäre es ein fatales Signal, wenn wir für unsere Texte ein Maschinchen arbeiten ließen. Hätte nämlich so gar nichts mehr mit Kreativität oder gar Schreibkunst zu tun…
Nun ist es so, daß sich die wenigsten bewußt sind über die Mechanismen, die sowohl der kreierenden als auch der detektierenden AI zugrunde liegen. Die AI, wie z.B. der ChatGPT, nutzen umfangreiche, von Menschen verfaßte Texte als Datenbank und Grundlage der „eigenen“ Auftragswerke. Diese sind also quasi zusammengesetzt aus gebräuchlichen Phrasen und Elementen, die Menschen zu Tausenden und Abertausenden im Vorfeld verwendet haben.
Die AI baut aus dieser Vielzahl vorhandener Fetzen nach den Vorgaben, die sie erhält, etwas neu zusammen. Das ist nicht kreativ. Das ist eine Fleißarbeit, die sie dank uferloser Rechenkapazität geschwind erledigen kann – ein Mensch würde für eine entsprechende Recherche unendlich lange brauchen…
Und nun tut ein Detektor-Tool nichts anderes, als einen zu prüfenden Text nach solchen standardisierten Phrasen zu durchsuchen. Und es ist ganz natürlich, daß er solche findet! In fast jedem beliebigen Text, der orthographisch und grammatikalisch korrekt geschrieben ist, aber nicht durch besondere Originalität glänzt. Wenn wir an der Stelle ehrlich sind: das gilt letzten Endes für eine Vielzahl der Beiträge hier auf dem Steem! Sie sind sprachlich einigermaßen okay, dank diverser Korrekturprogramme auch in Form und Ausführung nicht zu beanstanden. Ob sie von einem Menschen oder von einer AI zusammengeschrieben wurden, ist nicht mit einem derartigen Tool feststellbar!
Dazu kommt noch, daß bereits Studien bewiesen haben, daß vor allem junge Leute, die in zunehmendem Maße mit AI-generierten Texten konfrontiert werden, sich genau deren neutralen Schreibstil angewöhnen. Wie bitte, soll ein Tool da also noch eine zuverlässige Unterscheidung vornehmen?
Liebe Moderatoren und Admins ernsthaft betriebener Communities: hört bitte auf, Leute an den Pranger zu stellen für Dinge, die Ihr schlicht nicht beweisen könnt! Denn das, was diese Tools da fatalerweise ausspucken als „Diagnose“, ist schlicht nicht belastbar und verwertbar. Und damit ist Euer Handeln, das aus Anprangern und Ausgrenzen besteht, nichts anderes als Rufschädigendes Verhalten und Üble Nachrede. Ich schreibe das ganz bewußt groß, weil man das mit Straftatbeständen eben so macht. Ernsthaft: Ihr bezeichnet jemanden öffentlich, online, als Betrüger. Kommt Euch nicht in den Sinn, daß Ihr dafür zu belangen wärt? Das hier ist kein rechtsfreier Raum, auch wenn es gerne 'mal so aussieht. Und die Netiquette, auf die man sich allgemein in Internet-Foren beruft, gilt natürlich in allererster Linie für Euch! Wenn Ihr als Verantwortliche nicht darauf achtet, Euch korrekt zu verhalten, warum sollten es die Mitglieder dann tun…?
Aus meiner Sicht hat diese schlimme Tendenz zugenommen mit der Anspruchshaltung, die Beiträge innerhalb der Communities AI-frei zu halten und daraufhin zu „überprüfen“. Ja, zu Beginn der aktuellen Entwicklung wies das Steemit Team ausdrücklich darauf hin, sich gegen den übermäßigen und mißbräuchlichen Gebrauch der AI zu wappnen. In der Zwischenzeit gab es genügend Hinweise, sich besser aus den oben aufgezählten Gründen damit zu mäßigen und zurückzuhalten. Übergriffe sind nämlich mit Sicherheit in niemandes Interesse! Ich gehe so weit zu sagen: AI wird Steemit als Blogging-Plattform auf lange Sicht zerstören! Allerdings nicht durch AI-generierte Texte, sondern durch andauernde falsche und demütigende öffentliche Beschuldigungen. Kein ernst zu nehmender Autor wird sich das gefallen lassen!
Ich würde es tatsächlich begrüßen, wenn von Seiten des sc-Teams eine klare Ansage dahingehend käme, daß auf diesen Unsinn ausdrücklich zu verzichten ist. Ich würde mir sogar wünschen, daß den auffällig aggressiv labelnden und verurteilenden Moderatoren, Admins und schließlich Communities jegliche Unterstützung entzogen würde. Die erreichen mit ihrer Art zu agieren, genau eins: gute Autoren zu vergraulen. Das wiederum kann sich der Steem wohl kaum leisten, wenn er als Plattform und als Kryptowährung überleben will. Das funktioniert nämlich nicht mit den unzähligen „billigen“ Posts, die nur um einiger erhaschter Votes willen im Sekundentakt abgesetzt werden und sich vor allem durch mangelnden Inhalt auszeichnen.
Bitte: schaut stattdessen intensiver nach Plagiarismus – da laßt Ihr momentan einige Leute großzügigst gewähren…! Und kümmert Euch um die vielen mißbräuchlichen Mehrfachaccounts, um Verflechtungen innerhalb der einzelnen Communities und zwischen deren Leitungskadern. Reguliert doch bitte die Dinge, die man regulieren kann, weil sie sich zweifelsfrei nachvollziehen lassen!
Vielleicht, nur vielleicht, würde der Steem dann doch am Ende ein besserer Ort ;-)) Einer, zu dem die guten Autoren gerne kommen und veröffentlichen, weil sie von dem ganzen beschriebenen Müll verschont bleiben. Die Hoffnung stirbt halt zuletzt…
cc: @chriddi, @stef1, @visionaer3003, @o1eh, @patjewell, @ubongudofot, @damithudaya, ... - Ihr seid Moderatoren und Admins, die nach meiner Beobachtung stets sachlich, korrekt und lösungsorientiert mit etwaigen Verdachtsfällen umgehen. Ihr kennt gewiß auch die anderen; die, auf die ich abziele mit meinem Post. Die ihn aber leider nicht lesen werden, fürchte ich. Bitte helft mir, das Übel an der Wurzel zu packen...! Ich danke Euch!
Ich fand die Behauptungen der "Jäger" schon seit dem Aufkeimen der AI-Texte ziemlich gewagt.
Ich kenne die Beiträge jetzt nicht, auf die du dich beziehst, aber wir dürfen eben nicht vergessen, dass diese Tools nur mit Wahrscheinlichkeiten arbeiten. Diese Wahrscheinlichkeiten dann als "Beweis" hinzustellen und daraufhin Konsequenzen zu verhängen, empfinde ich mindestens als fahrlässig, wenn nicht sogar ... naja, du sprachst es an.
Aus meiner Sicht hat das ähnliche Qualitäten wie die Autoren, die ein negatives Ergebnis eines Plagiats-Check-Tools als "Beweis" für ihre "einzigartigen" Texte vorlegen wollen.
Letztlich ist dieses Verhalten aber Ausfluss des blinden oder vorauseilenden oder was weiß ich für einen unnötigen Gehorsam, um ja nicht die Gunst der großen Accounts zu verlieren...
Darum müssen genau die sich klar äußern!
Ich benutze solche Tools nicht, KI generiert oder nicht, nach dem ich gelesen habe, versuche ich mit guten Gewissen ein eigenes Bild zu machen von den Beiträgen, die unsere Autoren auf Steemit Plattform posten. Auf der dunklen Seite ist schlimmer, davon war neulich mein Freund @my451r stark betroffen und wurde down gevotet und viele anderen zu Unrecht.
@moecki hat das schon richtig geschrieben ich bin voll bei dir 👌
"unnötigen Gehorsam, um ja nicht die Gunst der großen Accounts zu verlieren..."
Danke Dir - ich habe auch mehrfach miterlebt, wie gute Autoren schwer brüskiert wurden. Ich verstehe diese Community ein bißchen wie einen Verlag - da ist man verantwortlich für "seine" Autoren, man stellt sich hinter sie. Und momentan gibt es da viel zu tun...
I saw that chatGPT retired their AI detector recently, because it was not accurate.
As you noted, it's common to get wrong results from the AI detection sites. The best option I've come up with is to use multiple sites and check multiple posts by the same author. Even after that, I am rarely 100% confident.
I agree with you about the people who make strong accusations in comments. I don't know what the right answer is, but aggressively accusatory comments are usually not helpful - IMO.
It's a hard problem, but we definitely don't want false accusations to drive away good contributors.
Thank you very much! I would be happy if there was an awareness of the fact that you can't just say things in public without putting yourself in the wrong...
Ja , da hab´ ich letztens auch schonmal so einen Kommentar gesehen bei meiner Bangladescherin @oishymaria , riesiger Kommentar mit #DUDUDU und dann etwas über 60% Wahrscheinlichkeit.
Dem hab´ ich dann mit @blackmedschn zusammen die Meinung "gegeigt" von wegen betrügerischem kleinkarierten penoiden Machthunger.
Das ist schon wieder so eine dreiste Bevormundung der Usenden , als könnte ich nicht und dürfte auch nicht selbst entscheiden was ich lese gutfinde und vote .
Genau , und Deine Einwände sind sowas von stichhaltig, dass man nur schließen kann dass !es tarpzächich ausschließlich um ideologischen Machthunger geht bei solchen Sachen und darauf steht nunmal seit der Zeitenwende die #DEATHPENALTY , hyhy .
Gibt nur Eines : die Dinger konsequent downvoten und übelste Sachen drunterkommentieren.
!invest_vote
Ich danke Dir! Und apropos: ich vermisse das blackmedschn - macht sie Urlaub?
I hope your message reaches the right people and leads to positive changes. 👍
I have my doubts. But I have to try... It's a shame.
I appreciate your effort. Plus, I'm grateful for your support in my case. 😊
The bad thing is: you are only one of many. And this is due to certain criteria that are called up in the Communities.
Thank you for your post on this subject.
AI presents considerable difficulties for a platform like Steem.
The AI detection tools are very far from perfect. If Moderators do use them then probabilities of at least 90% should be required for any AI generated conclusion should be reached.
The use of translation tools and grammar correction tools (like Grammarly) further interfere with AI detection.
'Natural detection' is more likely to be reliable - but this only really works for people checking texts written in their own native language, including comparison with an author's previous texts. Subject matter and context are also very important.
We hope Community Admins will give guidance to their Moderators.
As a first layer of arbitration in disputed cases we would suggest that Steem Representatives are called upon to give an opinion.
If there are particular communities where such 'AI Accusations' are occurring frequently it will be useful if we are tagged so that we might take note for future support offerings.
As a footnote we are keen that more people from Europe, North America and Australia apply to be Community Curators as those areas of the world are currently under-represented in the curation teams.
A thousand thanks for these clear words! Of course we can mention you if such conflicts accumulate in one place or around one person.
I also heard the subtle hint that applications for Community Curators from Europe are welcome ;-)) I am still grateful for the opportunity I got with Team Freestyle last year! Under the very liberal conditions of this team, I was able to get on well with the task and the responsibility. With the current profile - unfortunately not. I also fear that the amount of work I very much enjoy doing for Dream Steem may prevent me from applying again.
I had imagined in the spring that I would be a good fit as a Steem Representative, who after all does not have to be a team worker - and applied without meeting the minimum requirement for my own SP. Since this threshold has been raised again in the current round, I don't see any possibility of contributing in this way.
However, I am always good for cautionary words and a few unconventional thoughts. I promise ;-))
1500 STEEM in 13 days...
That's a challenge ;-))
I agree with your suggestion that we should have more Community Curators from Europe, North America, and Australia. I am an Indian and in India right now but settled in Australia for a long time. I will be back in Australia by the next month and have my plan to apply for this responsibility in the coming month. Thank you!
First off, I agree that current AI detection tools are far from perfect. Setting a high threshold like 90% probability seems wise before accusing someone of using AI. False accusations could really damage the community and people's reputations.
Your suggestion about "natural detection" being more reliable is well taken. As humans, we tend to have a good intuitive sense when content doesn't "sound" quite right or natural. Comparing writing styles (especially the comments) over time for a given author seems like a smart way to identify odd deviations that may indicate AI use.
However, as you pointed out, that too depends on the subject matter and context. For instance, the writing style of a fictional story is totally different from a casual post. Moreover, moderators checking the post should also be aware of “language diction” to avoid any misconception on their part.
Additionally, a transparent appeals process for accused creators could help fix any mistaken AI allegations. Handling disputes calmly and giving benefit of the doubt initially seems prudent. It’s possible that if such a system existed, I could’ve avoided the unpleasant situation I had to go through. Although I tried resolving my case on Discord first, it didn’t work out...
Overall, I appreciate you raising these concerns and suggestions in a constructive way. You clearly want to see this platform thrive without damaging content creators' reputations unfairly. 🙂
Congratulations, your comment has been successfully curated by @irawandedy at 10%
AI can actually be used positively as a reference for writers to develop their ideas in writing, but using it brutally actually endangers the continuity of their creativity in writing.
As an active user, since the beginning I have actively tested various types of AI detectors, but this cannot always be used as a final reference, even in personal experience I have experienced surprises when using English grammar repair services, the results of the 6 detectors I tested show that 99% of the writing is a product of AI.
I was surprised and had discussions with many platform users, both in Indonesia and even other users who understand English grammar well. It can be concluded that the detector will detect text generated by AI if the grammar writing for each sentence is very good, based on our discussion, it would be better for the writers of this platform to use their own language, without using a translator tool or Grammarly service so that unwanted things can be avoided.
As a verifier in the community, I continue to build interaction and polls regarding this in groups and individual discord. It is not easy to convict that an article detected by AI is an AI product. I did the steps that took a lot of time and effort by:
Engagement Challenges are also prone to be found by AI Products, but the percentage is very small but it takes the admin and moderator's hard work as verifiers to be more thorough in checking each article to be verified.
In certain cases, diary games can also be written using AI, the author outsmarts this by setting points of activity from morning to evening. This is a very difficult job to do, because it involves the user's daily activities, but back to my previous discussion that background and his writing style is an important indicator to suspect him and focus on searching and proving.
Weaknesses for the global community when they do not represent moderator representatives who master a particular language, of course it will take quite a lot of time for just 1 post. Should the representation of a moderator who understands a variety of languages be considered in combating this problem.
I will add other special problems that are crucial, for example in writing a game diary. The game diary is principally a diary for the writer within 1 day, meaning that in addition to the activities, the author also includes photos of the activities as a complement to the story. In fact, not all diaries use pictures on the same day, even pictures on several days are made into 1 diary.
In my opinion, this is ethical, and everyone should pay attention.
You have provided very thought-provoking material that should serve as a reference for everyone responsible for this AI checking process. What I feel is that at the end of the day, the writing style of an author is the only way to prove whether he used AI, Grammarly, or wrote it himself without using any tool. How would you take broken language suddenly turning into something that sends seasoned writers into shock?
You have raised a very important point. Although it is difficult, it is still considerable. 👍
Greetings Mr..
AI content detection tools do their respective jobs, even though they are not perfect, in fact, the most popular anti-plagiarism tools also have their flaws.
What you should do in such cases is to investigate the suspicious content both with AI detection tools and also using the anti-plagiarism tools.
In my experience, AI detection tools always give me clues to fractions of texts that have been taken from other sources.
I am at your disposal for any suggestions.
Very wise, very well researched, and should reach where it needs to. I know many admins and moderators have found their own writing to be AI-generated, but no one pointed it out to them or said anything about it in public, so they let it go.
I have a firm belief that this is a war of titans, and in this case, the heroes are Google and Microsoft. MS wants to sell its paid version, so everything that's listed on Google comes under "plagiarized content," and when I say everything, I mean it. I can prove it, barring the trash that goes Scotfree. Maybe if you check my comment, you'll find it AI-generated as well.
😁😁😁
Hehe - it's written by a dove... ;-))
Yeah, a simple innocent dove 😊
I've tested the paid version by a friend. There is a world of difference. You get to see which AI wrote the text at which time - there are hidden signatures built in that are only read out. Technically simple. But really expensive. Is it better to afford something like that if you want to do right and judge here? Or do one rely on your reading feeling...?
I haven't tested the paid version so far but I will do it soon, maybe next month. I have not tested it yet but I think I know its features because the ones who use it for testing purposes, I know them well and one of these will be in my reach.
I don’t think it’s worth it to buy the paid version. They are also not totally reliable.
Cc: @weisser-rabe
Yes, I have read about these days... But that's not what I mean. There are really reliable tools:
I had best user experience with originality.ai - but it's expensive for intensive operators:
In the end, you get reliable results...
That's what I feel, who will spend this much to earn 50 cents here? Maybe if you think in terms of writing a book but then if you are an author you won't even imagine using one.
Habichsmirnichgedacht...
Ja, das ist ganz spannend. Das hat gar nix mehr mit detektieren zu tun, sondern erinnert eher an Fehler auslesen, wie in der KFZ-Werkstatt...
Well, let me be the one to start of those you have copied.
AI is a nightmare, and if you think it is so for the authors, it is the same for admins, moderators, and curators.
Just yesterday we had a case, but I don't want to go into it. I want to find a solution.
Yesterday, I suggested a group of Steemians dedicated to AI checking where ADMIN of communities could report a user. It is then up to this team to investigate and give the verdict.
In other words, the moderator will report the post to admin. Admins investigate, and if a further problem is experienced, it gets reported to the AI group, and only they will comment on the post.
This will protect the author's name, the moderator, and the community.
This is were I end my two cents.
I think that is a good approach. The system would certainly not be free of errors, but the personal rights of the individual authors would be preserved. Thank you!
These detectors are funny, aren’t they? 😄
Without Grammarly
After Applying Grammarly
This AI tool is no more applicable and i have highly experience with such tools being a mods in multiple community , I recommend for mods and rest to use the following tools for AI detection .
https://www.zerogpt.com/
https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector
I also make it clear that its not perfect as like SC01 said but any how these tools are applicable for AI detection some how .
I wouldn’t recommend Zero GPT. Copyleaks is somewhat reliable, but not most of the time especially in case of "fictional stories" and "academic writing". In fact, most detectors declare everything related to fiction as being generated by AI. Just take a look at this comment about AI detectors on a random YouTube video. 😁
Cc: @dove11 and @weisser-rabe.
No way buddy, I checked your comment twice and see what happened
![Screenshot (1059).png](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmfFt9sbMiGyaeuzbmY86FPbAvVeRviJzQpStwUiPQG59q/Screenshot%20(1059).png)
CC @waqarahmadshah as you are one of the fans of this checker
AND HERE THE SAME COMMENT SAM CHECKER
Surprised 👀
Almost every detector gets confused when you scan fewer than 500 words. I’ve already discussed it here.
PS: I'm no longer a fan of any of these detectors, whether they are paid or free. 😀
Cc: @artist1111
Sorry, but no. There may be chance hits, but they do not justify blaming and denouncing anyone. What is really needed is a preoccupation with language, with style and choice of words, with textual comparisons, with personal characteristics...
Remove all punctuations and see the result.
Of course, then it will appear as 99% real. 😄
You are giving ideas to innocent people like me 😉
hahaha 😁.
(•ิ‿•ิ)
You're totally right!
In my experience, the best way to detect AI is to analyze patterns, detect repetitive texts, extremely complex concepts without a source. If there are these types of patterns, and additionally the AI detector throws a high percentage, then it is probably an AI content.
Despite this, it is always difficult to be sure. As I said a few months ago, the best thing in these cases is to ask the authors for bibliographic references, so at least you make sure to stimulate real research and analysis (at least in many more cases)
That's what I try to do. Mostly it's simple to verify the copyright...
Hello, @weisser-rabe, a lot of accusations have been made against innocent authors for no reason. I can see someone using fake tools to say a post was written with AI.
Just like in my case, where the user (@f2i5) pointed out that my post was AI-generated, whereas it wasn't. The two tools that were used show that it was 100% written by me. Also, using his tools to check the contest tips shows that the contest tips are AI-generated. Please, I will like you to go through the post link below and do your finding, because I am not happy when someone spoils my reputation for no reason.
https://steemit.com/hive-140292/@josepha/steemit-engagement-challenge-s11-w3-or-my-favorite-fable#@f2i5/rz7jqe
Hi @josepha, I compared your post with other texts of yours and I am quite sure that you do not use AI ;-))
@f2i5 has just promised to respond to your comment at the next opportunity: I think it is a challenge for admins and moderators to deal adequately with the new technical possibilities without denigrating authors. Many annoying mistakes have happened. I hope that the detailed discussion will help to avoid such hasty recriminations in the future!
I wish you all the best on the Steem!
Thank you so much for your quick respond.
Thank you for being a wise mediator. Here I want to clarify. Didn't mean to damage anyone's reputation. It is our responsibility to ask for verification from every user we suspect with the results of our checks. About the use of fake tools, Far from our expectation because we also use some other tools. I'll straighten it out nicely with @josepha when I get back.
I also hope you recommend the only perfect tool for us to use so that this event doesn't happen next time.
Steem On
Thank you for your answer ;-))
Unfortunately, I can't name you a perfect tool - I don't know of any in the free versions that really works reliably. The paid versions are more accurate because they work differently, but they can still be manipulated.
Move away from tools and read the articles carefully: how does the author construct his sentences, what language patterns does he use? Is his way of writing in posts the same as in comments? Does he tend to use a lot of attributes, to use nested sentences? These are all characteristics that can help to differentiate between artificial and natural intelligence...
If there is reason to inquire, I will in future inquire by encrypted message so that no public is initially involved in such an accusation.