You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: La Crisis en Libia y el Papel Crítico del Banco Central: Un Análisis Profundo

in LeoFinance3 months ago

so these are the Neo-Luddites who oppose technology, because they are out of work, hahaha cry me a river, whatever, put your reward in your ass.

they think they are going to stop people just because you don't like it haha i'm leaving InLeo. good riddance to them

Sort:  

Screenshot 2024-08-24 at 11.26.46.png

Hi.

  1. It was not clearly explained in these posts that the content was AI-generated. It means that you automatically claimed to be the author of the content, not AI.
    Intentionally using AI to deceive the community into thinking you are the original author is a fraud. Using this deception to exploit the Hive reward pool is also a fraud.

  2. If you use AI-generated content please clearly state it in the title of the post and decline rewards.

I appreciate your concern, but I disagree with your interpretation. The use of AI as a writing assistance tool does not invalidate my authorship of the content. Here are my arguments:

  1. The research and topic selection are mine. The AI does not choose what to write about.

  2. Formulating the right questions for AI requires knowledge and judgment of my own.

  3. I review, edit and verify all information generated. I do not publish anything without my supervision.

  4. The use of technological tools to improve writing does not eliminate intellectual authorship.

  5. The AI is an assistant, not the primary creator of the content.

I consider labeling this as 'fraud' to be excessive. While I understand the importance of transparency, I think there are more constructive ways to approach the use of new technologies in content creation.

Since there seems to be an irreconcilable difference in our perspectives on this issue, I have decided to migrate my content to platforms such as PeakD, where they feel there is a more open approach towards integrating new technologies into the creative process.

It was not a basic grammar and structure correction but generated most of the writing.
Hive values original content, not content generated by a machine.

For example, if you try publishing this type of content on Medium, your account will be restricted and demonetised.


PeakD is part of the same Hive ecosystem. Just as hive.blog, it is one of many frontends built on the hive blockchain.
Whatever you publish on any Hive frontend, will be automatically visible on all other frontends.

I appreciate your perspective, but I believe it's important to consider several points:

  1. The definition of 'original content' is evolving with technology. Using AI as an assistance tool doesn't necessarily invalidate the originality of thought and content curation.

  2. The comparison with Medium isn't entirely applicable, as Hive prides itself on being a decentralized platform with diverse perspectives.

  3. As PeakD clearly stated, HiveWatchers' position represents a decision by a small group, not a consensus of the entire Hive community or an official blockchain rule.

  4. PeakD also reminded users that participation in the reward system is optional. Users can choose not to interact with groups whose policies they don't share.

  5. Research, topic selection, question formulation, and final editing remain intellectual processes performed by humans, even when AI is used as a tool.

I believe it's crucial to maintain an open dialogue about integrating new technologies into content creation, rather than adopting restrictive stances that may limit innovation and creative expression on the platform.

https://hive.blog/ai/@hivewatchers/ai-generated-content-not-original-content

You can decline rewards before publishing such content and the issue will solve itself.