Recently, the issue of AI-Generated (and in my case, AI-Assisted, 😂) writing has raised significant ethical concerns here on Hive.
I am a victim of the current stance on this issue, and I've cried foul here already. I am not entirely correct, but I have an opinion and must be allowed to express it.
However, as I look into the issue further, I believe I maybe wrong in some ways, and still, may not be deserving of the sentences due me.
Also
The issue of Hive Watchers and how they are wielding their control has been a thing of concern for some, and a controversial one as well.
Currently
Most people are given their opinion on their blogs, but as a concerned individual, and one who has been affected, I wanted to use this medium to bring some concerned fellows together, regardless of their stance on this:
Let's discuss, and decide on the best approach to handling such issues here. It is not exactly about me, it is about setting a standard, and building a formidable precedence.
So, let Hive decide:
- Should we try to make a distinction between AI-Generated & AI-Assisted contents?
- If there is need for a clearer guideline for AI-writing/assisting, what must be contained in it?
- How should conflict on the chain be resolved? From communities or directly to HW?
- What kind of punishment should be administered and to what extent (length and breadth)?
- Should HiveWatchers re-evaluate their appeal processes and remediation measures?
- AI detectors are unreliable. Should they be used as a yardstick to inform decisions of whether a content was AI-Generated or AI-Assisted?
- What becomes of people like me who have been blacklisted from the first offense? Shouldn't there be at least, a three-warning system?
- Should conflict resolution on Hive be partisan or more democratic and decentralized?
- Is Hive truly censorship resistant on the way it is currently ran?
- If AI-Written/AI-Assisted contents are wrong because it is seen as low effort and farming, how about more serious issues like autovoting that is constantly creating an imbalance in reward distribution, shouldn't it be look at as well? Or is it less serious than AI issue?
There are more questions to be answered, but I would like your inputs, and I hope this issue receives more broader and system scale recognition.
Sincere apologies if you don't like being tagged, but I am tagging because I believe you're a voice here and your opinion matters truly.
@acidyo @josediccus @taskmaster4450 @garlet @neoxian @edicted @erikah @awesomeintrigue @dlmmqb @riverflows @incublus @phortun @azircon @fenngen @valued-customer @starstrings01 @awesomeintrigue @ksteem @niallon11 @shadowspub @dreemsteem @tarazkp @galenkp @steemflow @mahirabdullah @hivewatchers @riz611 @jamerussell @cmplxty @khaleelkazi
By this invite, I've reached out to both ends of the spectrum, "the far-right and far-left", so to speak.
I am inviting you to this discussion so that a decision can be reached, or at least, Hivewatchers could borrow a thing or two to make their activities a bit more yielding. I am not finding who will give a defense for my case. Let's just discuss with an open heart.
Repeated calls have been made by well-meaning individuals to reach a decision on this, no real meeting like this have been held, so I would appreciate if y'all honour this. Let me bear the brunt of this, and if this sells me out the more, that's fine.
Feel free to invite more persons to this discussion.
First, you're not banned. If you were banned you wouldn't be here. Second, no one has any right to tell you what to do with your property. That means you don't have the right to tell anyone else what to do with their property. All the rules and stuff you propose are therefore tyrannical impositions on what people can do with their property, and I disagree with them. Every rule can and will be violated by anyone put in charge of enforcing it.
Maybe Nigeria is a corruption free paradise, but the USA is not, and as far as I can tell government is primarily a vector for corruption, and working for the government is a route to that sweet, sweet graft. That's who imposes rules: government.
Hive has a government. The 20 consensus witnesses decide what code they run. We vote for witnesses. Other than that there isn't much of a route to government corruption money for Hive users, and frankly, that's already too much and I've had such discussions with many of the witnesses.
You're not banned, silenced, or bleeding out in a ditch. @hivewatchers can't do any of those things to you according to their rules. They can downvote you. They can talk mean to you if you try to beg them to stop. You can talk mean back and downvote them. If you don't have massive delegations of stake and a proposal funded through the proposal system to lend weight to your flags, you can get those things. You can buy more Hive to flag them with.
@hivewatchers flagged you for botting, but they're not in charge of your posts, and if you want to use AI to refine your writing you are completely free to do that. They can't stop you. They can flag you. They can flag you until the cows come home, and there isn't anything I can do to stop that, except ask them to stop and upvote you. About that. You're proposing all sorts of government to keep people from doing what they want with their property because you don't like it. I don't like that. I don't like government, because it's evil.
Government is the claim of higher authority over you than you have, and it's a lie. You alone can will your heavy hand to rise to your weary brow and wipe away the dripping sweat of your hard labors. Government can't do that. They don't have that authority, because it's innate to you alone. You are sovereign, and that's due to the only just law there is, the law of physics.
Now, I'm not big on flagging people. I reckon it's a poor argument for anyone capable of reason, and I prefer to reason. One of my favorite lines in any religious work is in Isaiah: Come. Let us reason together... Accordingly, I'm not going to flag you for proposing evil government deprive all of us of our rights, but instead seek to convince you you're wrong by reasoning with you instead. I reckon that will be enough for me, and if you don't agree, it's your right to be wrong.
I'm in the process of upvoting back to positive reputation one of my favorite trolls, who flags and berates me from time to time. That's why I want him on the platform, because criticism is my most valued reward on Hive. Without it I won't ever realize I'm wrong about stuff I'm wrong about and become able to change my mind and become right.
I'm ornery and opinionated, and I've been flagged plenty. Some of the flags I even disagree with. You're not the first Hive user I've explained these things to, and you won't be the last. I hope you benefit from the explanation more than most, who didn't really care about any of these things because they just wanted what they wanted.
Know this: a lot of people I admire a great deal have been flagged off the platform, and there hasn't been anything I could do about it. I don't know much about you except that you used AI to change the words you write, which I don't think should be done in human social interactions, and that you got flagged for it and have proposed a bunch of government to deprive us all of our rights because you want more money.
You're not getting on my good side, TBQH.
I like your honest and critical view of this. I really appreciate that you put time and efforts to explain things like this, so calmly and collected. It is okay that I'm not getting on your good side, but if criticisms come like this, with solid and detailed explanations backing it, I can't agree less with your opinion of me, and can't fault it even if it didn't really went down well with my mental atmosphere.
It is fine you just highlighted to me that I've not been banned, or silenced, but just been flagged for being on the wrong side of principles and rules.
However, I wasn't proposing a disband of a policing system for Hive (which is in this case, Hivewatchers). I just wanted a honest appraisal of everything without being too sentimental about the issues, and with that I can be readjusted, and your comment, while seemingly brutally honest, was what I needed all along to readjust my view of the whole situation. I appreciate the work of HWs on the chain, but just wish (IMO), they do it a little better, though, I've not crossed their paths a lot, so I have not really had to deal with them face to face as I am currently going through.
However, my reaction to this was honestly out of a wounded heart, and feelings of desperation. Maybe, I reacted too emotionally, and would be readjusted to this course in due time.
Thanks a lot for reaching out, and apologies if the tagging was a bit annoying to you.
Almost everyone that's here long enough is criticized and enabled to grasp (some more) of the realities operant on Hive. HW isn't a government. It's just an account and user funded to promote the interests of some stakeholders.
My fundamental take on these issues are that human society is sacred. We are the saviours we need. Automating any aspect of our interactions degrades us, reduces us to the level of toasters, ignoring our transcendent natures. I do what I can to persuade people to bless each other with their forthright speech, and it is sad that we are all confused and distracted by a great many things, but most commonly stake.
Stake is one of the least valuable things in society, and in due time will be commonly understood as far beneath the extraordinary blessings of our good company. I undertook the effort to share some perspective that I hope you can benefit from because you seem sincere and rational enough to benefit from it.
Such potential to increase the value of society to us all is worth encouraging, IMHO. Express yourself, share that sacred gift you are with the world, and eschew tainting your voice with mere things that literally are no more valuable than toasters. Almost any value you can name is more worthy of our attention than mere money, and I hope you can rise above pecuniary interest to grow the value of society to all of humanity with your forthright speech.
Reason to decline the invitation:
https://peakd.com/hive-153850/@zestimony/creating-my-own-stock-images#@hivewatchers/rqxanr
Thanks for inviting. Have a Good day!
Lol! Accepting or rejecting the invite is simply up to you! Thanks for commenting at least!
I don't know your specific case so I can't comment on that.
But my idea about using AI in Hive I expressed in my article and in the comments to that one. Unfortunately the most interesting in Italian which is my native language and I don't have fluent English.
On the contrary, in this regard, I immediately state, to avoid misunderstandings, that in my answer I am receiving support from AI (Google Translator, yes, that too is an algorithm, i.e. an AI).
Summing up:
1. The criminalization of the use of AI is due to ignorance 2. AI is a tool and a tool cannot be judged, only the use made of it. 3. automatic voting is also an AI 4. Hive posts should be judged on the quality and level of interaction of the author. 5. The author's interaction level is not helped by the use of AI 6. on Hive there are many posts that are voted without having any or poor quality, and the AI ​​does not make the situation worse 7. indicating the use of AI is a principle of transparency but it does not seem fundamental to me especially if the AI was used only to support and not to write the entire article 8. I see many posts, even from whales or important characters on Hive, which report images without indicating the source, although it is clear they are taken from the web. Is it less serious than using AI? 9. Moderation and downvote should be limited to avoid serious phenomena and I do not consider the use of AI at this level.Having said that, however, I do not agree on combining downvote and censorship: they are two different concepts: no one prohibits publication, nor could they do so, but the gain from publication is limited. Censoring means preventing people from expressing themselves, not preventing them from earning.
Censorship is not only preventing people from speaking, it's any suppression of their speech, and downvotes certainly do suppress speech. In fact, it is their ability to censor spam, scams, and plagiarism that make them necessary to Hive.
Please search up any authoritative source for a definition of censorship to see that I am speaking the truth. I have in the past provided links to Webster's, Wikipedia, Britannica, and others, but feel you are more than capable of doing so yourself, and likely to more benefit from doing so, as people seem to feel links others provide are somehow suspect.
What you write is true up to a certain point. What you provide is a very broad definition of the term censorship, a definition in some ways political, and being political, very elastic, which society uses with convenient interpretations depending on the situation.
Censorship is impediment to expression. Nobody prevents you from expressing yourself on Hive. You can do it. In compliance with the rules of the environment.
I don't think you let anyone come into your house and start saying whatever they want. I guess you set limits on what your guests can express, beyond which you kick them out of the house. Even the most democratic states have statutory limits on what is free speech. And I say this while thinking that there shouldn't be crimes of opinion as they exist in all states. Similarly Hive has rules: you can write and express whatever you want and NOBODY can prevent it. He just has no means to do that. But the community can keep you from making money from what you write. If what you want to communicate is of fundamental importance to you, I don't think making money from it is relevant.
There is no other environment that has more freedom on this than Hive. Or rather, they exist, but the overlapping of voices, often of poor quality, with no possibility of limitation, has led those places to simply not be frequented: even the background noise limits the diffusion of your message.
I pretty strongly agree with what you say here. I have all too often encountered stake holders trying to bamboozle people into believing that downvotes aren't censorship, which leaves people vulnerable to their misunderstanding, and that is why I interejected at all.
Indeed, that is why I'm here today.
Okay. Thanks a lot for reaching out mate! I appreciate that you took out time to respond.
First of, your English is not bad at all for a non-native English speaker. It is quite okay and I had zero difficulty understanding you.
Also, thanks for clarifying my thoughts on the idea of censorship and downvoting as to how they are distinct concepts.
While your view of AI use agrees with mine, I believe it is not a very popular view here on Hive. As a result, it seems its safer to go with the chain's flow, so one is not caught up in a lot of controversies just as I am currently.
I think with time, more clearer stance on the use of AI would be made public, while we wait, I want to say thanks again for reaching out.
Sorry I tagged you here! Sincere apologies!
That's not my English :) I'm using an AI, called Google Translator. ;)
There's no need to apologize. You did me no harm and I answered because I liked doing it.
All great advances have always struggled to make headway, AI will be no exception. Ed Hive is turning out to be a more conservative environment than it might have seemed.
Lol. Thanks for sticking around and using AI to facilitate our communication 😉.
That's a solid point. I remember the story and issues surrounding the use of calculators. I wrote a lot about this, but most persons found it offensive!
This is also very true. But I believe in no time, things will be properly ironed out.
Censorship is any suppression or alteration of speech. Total censorship can only be achieved by double tapping you to the back of the head, and upon reflection you should grasp that censorship is commonly a matter of degree, and prevention of speech at all is almost always unrealistic.
You can ascertain the actual definition of censorship and observe that downvotes are in fact censorship by searching up any authoritative source of your choice and reading the definition provided.
This is a valid point, because with the amount of downvotes I've been receiving lately, it feels clearly evident that there isn't a need trying to write again on the chain. I've been brought to a halt with regards to my activities here.
I'm just trying to find the next way out, because the appeal process for HW is only designed to be humiliating. Any suggestions is appreciated.
HW is just another user. It is not the law. There are other users that act to counter HW, opposing censorship, such as @freezepeach, who may use their stake to counter downvotes.
If your will and determination to speak the truth is subsidiary to your financial interests, you will always be subject to control large stakeholders effect. Your interests will inform your actions, and it is to your benefit you well understand them, and the influences on them. If stake is primary amongst your interests, you will best meet your needs by meeting the demands of large stakeholders.
Arguing with large stakeholders will be contrary to your interests in that case, and insofar as you have, you find your actions regrettable. You will have to carefully consider your interests, well understand yourself, and create an action plan based on your current circumstances that will best meet your needs.
As for my own values, I find financial interests of little relevance on Hive, and I am primarily here to speak forthrightly and hear the forthright speech of others, so I am focused on such matters, and largely deprecate others. My preferred actions are likely to be irrelevant to you, who have your own interests.
Thanks a lot. These are quite valid points, and I appreciate your honest appraisal and suggestions. Definitely, I'd have to choose what's more important to me and act accordingly based on my innate values. I appreciate your support and frankness so far. Maybe, we could get to talk more off the chain, and collaborate on a few things in the future (that's if you are Okay with it, Discord is fine for me).
I've mentioned it before, only thing AI that is somewhat acceptable is an AI generated image. Providing you an image that assists your writing. You can have some fun with it and make sure your writing/post doesn't look bland, a good photo/image can help in enhancing your post. Of course, you should also mention the image generator that you've used, giving it the credit it deserves.
As long as the image is AI, but at least the writing is yours, then you're adding some value here, from your own mind, thought process and experience. Content that includes the features I mentioned simply has some value because it's unique, and it's your own.
Whereas if you're using anything similar to ChatGPT, then all the credit simply goes to the bot/AI. Of course, you typed in a prompt, probably around 10 words or so, which the AI breaks down and provides some robotlike writing; no flaws, no emotions, and obviously no ownership, we don't really own that piece of writing.
That is where the problem lies, because once again, this platform right here, PeakD, fosters the idea of True Ownership.
Hi Riz611, I really appreciate the fact that you honoured this invite (and sincere apologies if tagging is somewhat offensive to you).
I really appreciate your feedback and your honest opinion on this matter. Though, these facts maybe debatable, it is well presented and easy to understand.
I think you share the same view with most persons here, and I think it would be best I flow with the rhythm of the chain than against it.
Once again, thanks for stopping by!
You are welcome. 🥃
I just shared my view, my 2 cents, some users will agree with and some won't, and that's okay I guess. I'm just a casual user, sharing my thoughts and views.
Thanks Riz for stopping by!
Anytime 🥃
I'll admit right up front, I'm biased. I create original content. This is what the platform was designed for and what I appreciate it most for. I think that is in the majority. Most of the folks I know do not come here to see the same FB, Twitt, and other garbage repetitively copied over and over. To me, Chatbot, AI, etc. is the same as wikipedia, GSearch, or any other source. If you're going to use it or be "assisted" by using it, then quote it as the source instead of plagiarizing it. Perhaps even create it's own community, where those that like it or want it can enjoy it to their heart's content without bothering the rest of us. For me, anyone using extensively or without crediting it properly in the communities I manage will be muted permanently. That's one of the real values of the communities, we can keep them limited to the content our members want to see and let the other things go elsewhere.
KSteem! I really appreciate your honest opinion, and I'm honoured that you took out the time to stop by (apologies if you're one of those that don't like being tagged).
You know, the use of AI is something that is highly controversial and divisive, but you've nailed the fundamentals as to yourself, your personal beliefs and how it informs your actions as to how you manage the communities you run.
Honestly, I can't fault your POV. It is an ethical issue, and no one can be an epitome of morality, we all have some sense of what's good and bad which has been shaped by our experiences, upbringing, and sociocultural context in which we found ourselves.
What I appreciate the most is how you clearly stated this:
Extensive use and crediting is an issue. To be honest, in my case, I was completely oblivious of this as I skipped on the community notice for this. I was in the wrong, though, my case swiftly went from the first notice straight up to muting, HW spamming comments, and downvotes. It seems they quietly stopped the downvotes, but I am not sure yet.
However, lessons learnt - I will be more careful going forward.
Thanks once again!
Yesterday I wasted enough energy on this debate. I don't condemn AI content but I think human efforts have more value, therefore I am ok with the stand Hive Watchers has taken and others who downvote. As @galenkp said, learn to take accept that and do your thing.
My stance on this subject is pretty much expressed in the post I wrote yesterday.
Congratulations @zestimony! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 17000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!