This post was written by a human, not AI.
Why fight a battle you cannot win?
Proving someone used AI to create writing content is inherently difficult and often rests on assumptions rather than definitive proof. I'm going to explain to you why it’s challenging to determine AI involvement and the factors that affect this:
Why AI Use in Writing is Hard to Prove
- No Unique Markers:
AI-generated content doesn’t leave a “digital fingerprint.” Tools designed to detect AI involvement work by analyzing patterns in syntax, word choice, and structure, which are statistical rather than definitive.
- Human-like Editing:
When a person edits AI content, it becomes virtually indistinguishable from fully human-written content. The more human oversight applied, the harder it is to detect.
- Ambiguity of Writing Styles:
Humans naturally vary in their writing styles. Someone’s natural style may resemble patterns AI tools identify, leading to false positives.
- AI Detection Tools are Imperfect:
AI detection algorithms rely on statistical analysis, which can misclassify:
• AI content as human-written (false negatives).
• Human content as AI-written (false positives).
- Lack of Forensic Evidence:
Unless someone provides direct evidence of using AI there’s no foolproof method to trace a piece of content back to an AI generator. Some AI ART is noticeably not human, but writing is a stickier situation.
Why It’s Often Just an Assumption
- Reliance on Probabilities:
Detection tools provide confidence scores but lack definitive proof. For example, a tool might say, “80% likely to be AI-written,” but that doesn’t equate to certainty. - No Legal Framework:
Currently, there’s no universal framework requiring authors to disclose AI use, making it impossible to enforce transparency in most cases. - Human Assistance Blurs the Line:
If someone heavily edits AI-generated text or uses tools as part of their creative process, the final product may be so humanized that even detection tools fail.
What Would Be Needed to Prove AI Use?
• Access to AI System Logs: If someone accessed and used a specific tool (ChatGPT) and left records or logs showing the interaction.
• Audit Trails: Cloud-based tools or version histories might show AI-generated drafts, but this depends on the user’s transparency.
Conclusion
Without direct evidence, proving someone used AI is highly speculative and often based on circumstantial signs. The assumption of AI use will likely remain an assumption unless tools improve significantly.
Time to talk about it...
Have you ever been accused of using AI to create your writing?
Did you ever use AI to create content?
Do you think using something like Grammarly is acceptable for writing content?
- Is being in control of AI enough to consider yourself a creator of the content?
Comment below and tell me what you think.
Posted Using INLEO
Yes, of course. I use AI to give me ideas, to make drafts for me, to generate images, to add insight and information, to organize thoughts, to generate text to speech, to edit audio, to add text or generate subtitles... If you're not using AI in 2025, you're missing out on an incredibly useful tool that can help YOU (the human) create better, more compelling content.
If you're referring specifically to HIVE, I'd say don't overuse it to the point it's obviously low-effort, low quality data without any insight. Don't post a dozen times a day and I'd say show that you have skin in the game by buying HIVE and using your voting power to choose witnesses and DHF projects.
I'm sorry you got on someone's bad side. I hope you can jump through the damn hoops and move on.
I know there are many of us, especially on this platform, that use AI quite often for various things. The majority of the population still has yet to even begin to start to use AI though. I’ve been able to slowly put some people on like parents and other people but most act like they’ve never even heard about the capabilities whenever I start talking about it. It’s a part of our life now and there’s no undoing that. I understand wanting to manage usage but being totally anti-AI is pretty absurd in 2025.
You are right about this.
The people who understand and know how to use AI for writing are the one who can edit and make the written content sound more human.
It is only learners of AI who don't edit i.e. copy from AI and post directly paste to social media are the ones whose content can be detected by AI detectors.
I have personally used AI for crafting social media posts(for some accounts I manage) especially tweets and I do a little edits.
I'm sure 80% of Crypto Twitter uses AI for their posts but we have no proof hehe.
The crazy part is that even if somebody did copy and paste AI writing, some AI detectors still may fail to detect it. Then there are people who did not even use AI and detectors mat mistake it as AI. There’s no certainty in it at all and being able to call out some people, but not others just makes it totally illegitimate to contest someone’s work unless you have definitive proof. And yeah, most of crypto Twitter is absolutely insane and I’m sure majority of those people are using AI to profit big time. We see how well Twitter is doing compared to Hive, sadly. Embracing AI, at least to some extent, is essential to be successful in the future as a social media platform.
We'd use AI on Hive but it'd be considered not original content!
Anyway as we said it's still difficult to detect AI written content and worse still original content is being flagged as AI.
Weirdest thing to me about hive is that AI images have always been completely fine to curators, they don't really give a shit; so many people make silly amounts of money just posting ai images with little else and nobody blinks an eye, it's even more supported now with peakd implementing ai image generation
but the text side of things is supposedly a big no-no, that'll get you rejected from the chain within an instant with all future post rewards nuked; for me it's all too thin, can't say i personally support either
good to see you say fuck it and just get back to posting though
Not in my experience. Maybe we’ve dealt with different curators. Anything AI has generally drawn heavy criticism from at least a person or two. That’s definitely not me saying that a cookie cutter AI post with no creativity is okay, definitely not what I mean. I just know it’s a useful tool that I’ll always be using at least some from now going forward. I’d be crazy to not make use of some capabilities of AI daily.
We are going to look back at times like now and wonder how we ever contested assistance from AI. The future is going to be drastically different than our past in a lot of ways.
i don't touch anything ai but from what i've seen the art communities on here tend to be fine with ai images, and people use ai images in thumbnails all the time and nobody seems to care
i don't really compare the generative stuff to the real functions it provides though, very different things to me
i do know that the generative stuff is an instant avoid from me when it comes to art/thumbnails, it just doesn't appeal to my interests but that's me
I love just having fun generating images with AI. I’ve been extremely hesitant to make a whole post about AI generated images ever again. Now sure maybe a portion of my thumbnail creation process sometimes, but that’s about the end of it. Otherwise I feel lazy and I know I could do much better.
I enjoy writing too much to be letting AI do that for me ever. But damn is it good at providing me information to bounce off of and just teaching me things overall. What an age we live in.
did you see how call of duty was using ai generated images for some of the icons it was selling/using during events?
Yes I heard about that. And honestly it didn’t bother me one bit at the time, I thought their creations looked great. The skins in COD are crazy, but top notch in my opinion. Not sure if they are also using AI for those, but clearly what they are doing is working. That juggernaut of a game has been around forever and still at the top.
hmmmmm, ai what? never heard of it.. :P