Yes... This. But before I go ahead, let me give you a back story
A big user on Hive has currently admitted to using AI to create their contents and unfortunately we know what follows after such a confession. However, if you do not already know, I will tell you: downvotes. It is inevitable.
However, this could have been resolved in about two minutes. The user could have instantly agreed to create more original content and that was it. However, it devolved into an endless debate over who is wrong or right.
The two parties are not wrong or right, but we understand that Hive has unwritten rules, one of which prohibits the use of AI for full content creation.
The user argued that Hive is decentralized, so they can use whatever tool they want to create their content, which is not entirely false. They are correct in the sense that decentralization gives you complete control over what you can and cannot do; however, the concept of endless and unlimited freedom breeds confusion and abuse.
On the other hand we cannot argue that Hive has some serious itchy fingers that wants to DV anyone at any slightest provocation. I mean, these people would rather shoot than ask questions. Unfortunately, the user was adamant that they were correct in using AI, and the downvoters were equally adamant in their decision to downvote them. Two alleged "rights" do not equal one actual right, which is what causes complete chaos and disorder.
To be honest though I think it's not a problem to use AI or reference it's usage. I have seen creators here who use it partially for images or other purposes, but I honestly believe it is best to slam a prompt on chatGPT and then copy and paste into peakD in under 4 minutes. It negates the concept of original content creating, and it makes even worse when rewards are involved.
It's unfair to the system in general, but the only problem with using AI for contenting on Hive is how the offender or the accused often handles the matter.
When confronted with AI offenders, I believe the first course of action should be diplomacy, but attempting to use decentralization as a justification will only lead to further confusion and disagreement. Nonetheless, this is how we are. When we are clearly wrong, we have a natural tendency to argue. People sometimes choose argument over making necessary corrections in order to protect their ego.
AI usage comes with unwritten rules, and anyone who has been here for close to 5 years (as that user has), must understand that protection or reputation is probably more important than short-term rewards gains.
However, there is another invisible sense of rightness that comes with being a Hive investor: the idea of being free to do whatever you want.
Yes, we understand that people like investors and customers add value to a product, business, or Blockchain through their money, presence, membership, and patronage, but these qualities can also give them an excessive sense of rightness, which can be harmful. Do we need people on Hive? Yes. Should we numb the concept of unwritten rules because of this? I do not know. It is like prioritizing an unborn child over the mother, or vice versa.
Diplomacy is a trait that is lacking on Hive
.....and this is due to the fact that many users, both accused and enforcers, lack these abilities.
It is understandable that we can not claim to be 100% decentralized, but show me a system that is, and I will wait.
I believe that using the "decentralization" defense in cases of plagiarism, AI usage, or spam will be ineffective, because the Blockchain requires both external and internal protection. The only issue is that a lack of diplomacy, as well as the presence of pride, ego, and stubbornness, causes it to frequently escalate.
So, what should you do instead?
Hive is a place where you can find accessible labour.
The social front of Hive is a semi-marketplace, a hub for interaction that leads to simpler solutions. What this creator should have done was find a user/creator who creates in the same niche as them, ask them to create on their behalf, and split the rewards 60/40 or 70/30 with them.
There are brilliant creators on Hive who will gladly take on additional content creation duties if they are compensated. This way, the author continues to earn while allowing another Hive creator to benefit, and the idea behind AI creation dies a significant death.
Win-win for everyone.
The reward system allows users to share their content rewards, which can be useful, particularly for those who do not have the time to create their own items. Hive can serve as a hub and marketplace for economic and social collaboration. This idea alone can stop the reliance on AI for content creation.
Interested in some more of my posts
Why Is the grind getting harder?
Monopoly Is the Death of Civilization
Survival: Choas and Scarcity
Crypto: Gut & meaningful Connections
What is the primary barrier to entry in Web3?
What Are Some Things You Should not Do During A Bull Market Year?
