**You should also talk about the extensive use of Grammarly, as that can show content to be written by AI**

Why do you keep saying "unwritten rule" so often? It seems quite obvious that if you haven't used your brain to generate content then maybe it shouldn't be rewarded. It's not really something uncommon or far-fetched to expect that to be the case. Your post seems to indicate as if you're shocked and surprised that that is the case, that a community of people from all over the world would be against someone suddenly starting to shit out a post per day using AI and less effort in geekgirl's case while increasing reward generation by many folds.

Is it really that surprising to you that curation should work this way? You're one of the most rewarded authors on hive with a reputation number that places you in rank #21 of all accounts and this is somehow an "unwritten rule" to you? 

Let's take a look at your post again so people don't think I'm just overly aggro or trigger happy to downvote people as if it's a fun activity to do and benefits me in any way. 

> 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. 

Why the fuck is this an unfortunate action? That we can protect our reward pool for low effort farms is unfortunate to you? How are things looking on steemit's and blurt's trending lately? 


![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/acidyo/23uRHnVoCnNgsZ5Kpu7GzbbvjGEnJ5FU7j7whbHf19hpkRXVJpxJ13gzKDssga5MSRnMB.png)
_wow such amazing engagement of the trending posts of the same authors there daily, what a beautiful proof of brain project, definitely one of a kind_


> 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

Or they could just openly separate text in the post to make it clear what is AI generated and what isn't and not be negative about receiving some downvotes if majority of the post is AI generated if they happen to be an author that receives a lot of autovotes (like myself and yourself) since they openly admit a lot of the content of the post was created with low effort - low effort such as having AI generate a lot of the content of the post and you just reading through it to make sure it's "true", etc. That's still low effort content and should be stated as such. It's not "who's right and who's wrong", it's about who's transparent and upfront about it and who's trying to keep it hidden and deceive curators that you're putting in more effort than you what they really are - that's what AI does, it helps you create things faster and at your convenience, it's not something that's up for debate if it's "wrong or right" if such content should be similarly rewarded as non-AI generated content. 

> there is another invisible sense of rightness that comes with being a Hive investor: the idea of being free to do whatever you want.

They are free to do what they want, they can continue to post AI generated content as much as they want, no one can stop them. You're mixing investor and author here for unknown reasons, while you're free to do what you want, you're not free to receive rewards however you want. You're free to counter the downvotes if you feel AI generated content should be rewarded depending on who's posting and you're probably free to retaliate on anyone who disagrees with you. 

I agree with the rest of the content on your post, just the beginning part kind of irked me the wrong way coming from a top hive author. It really shouldn't be that confusing at this point in time that if you suddenly started using AI to generate posts and get caught that you'll most likely face some downvotes if you're generally earning a lot of rewards but also if you're new and earning less rewards - same fate should face you. 

There's many days I miss posting knowing I may miss out on a lot of autovotes - even if I forfeit many of them to projects, hive.fund, null, etc. I still don't post if I'm busy with other things. Could I just tell chatgpt to write 1000 words about a random subject I'm usually interested in and post that? Yes. Do I do it? No, cause I'm not a dumbass wanting to risk their reputation getting fucked beyond repair like some do and then on top of it try and justify and defend their actions. Just don't post if you don't have the time, others putting in effort will get your rewards although they're not going to notice much increase due to the size of active authors here daily. 

PS. Your title is a bit weirdly formed, the "so" doesn't really fit in and it stands out as bad grammar. 

Hive is proof of stake... The who owning the bigger stake has more power over it. Hive is decentralized, there are no rules, I am free to do anything however other users are free to do the same... I am free to make 1 post per minute with AI generated content and I am also free to cast downvotes just because I don't like your avatar, other users are free to react to this ... It's true it becomes a mess like this, but it's not forbidden, so in the end the common sense is applied

I could argue on AI generated content, if you generate a post with a prompt on chatgpt, that's not correct, however if you do train a own model in local, spend a lot of time in refining, making loras and such then some monetization should be allowed 

You’re right.
Decentralization may offers more freedom but absolute freedom without clear rules can lead to chaos and misunderstandings just like you said.

>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.

I hope you're joking here, you can't be this stupid honestly. You know very well there have been cases like this and as no one likes to be lied to, or cheated by known accounts, you can imagine how these cases have ended.

What part of *original content* you don't understand? If it's not yours, don't use it, or quote it. Simple as that. 

Wow, what you started with your post! 😀 I admit I haven't seen the drama (maybe for the best), but without knowing the context, using AI for full post creation (or much of it) and being one of the best rewarded authors on Hive (now that I found out who you were talking about) is not the best combination.

Otherwise, AI is a tool we all need to learn to use better, and to find acceptable ways to use it on Hive too. That's a technology here to stay and in the spotlight even more than crypto and blockchain are.

You made me realize two things. First, I have been too obsessed with the idea decentralization. It seems many have very different understanding of it within Hive and outside the network. This idea has always been a driving force in my network participation. 

Second, Hive is not ready for AI revolution. AI tools have great potential to empower many. Developers getting parts of the coding work done using AI. It is frequently being used in business settings. Both AI and decentralized solutions will play significant roles in transforming societies.

I think transparency is key. In Hive, it is frowned upon to use AI to create the content for you, and I honestly don't see that changing anytime soon. After all, the highest stake holders all share that point of view. I think its more fun and enjoyable to make my own posts instead of having ChatGPT write it out for me, but that might just be me. Honestly, I think one of the biggest faults is that people can't admit they are wrong. It sounds like the person just tried to justify what they did, when they knew it was unfair. Sure, Hive is decentralized, but stake matters when it comes to who is rewarded.

@tipu curate

I think the idea of contracting a creator to write for you is a good one. Everyone goes home happy. 

That does sound like an alternative. But man, I wouldn't like Marques Brownlee or MrWhosetheboss have someone other than themselves "create" their videos or, even worse, make AI-generated videos of themselves. Likewise, I also wouldn't want that from anyone else whose content I'd like to consume or even myself. Heck, I'd dump Mark Manson if he didn't cuss a few times in his books because AI wouldn't generate "fuck that!" Besides, it's a rigmarole to me compared to being oneself. But sure, everyone can do what they want.

I believe there should be no point of discussion. Using AI and passing off content as your own is wrong in every way where it can be applied. Whether it's in Hive or at university trying to present a thesis.

Abusing the trust you have built up (by false means) makes the whole castle you have built fall apart. While AI is the future, we are in a context where human participation and engagement is valued, as well as how it adds value to the chain through original content. Decentralization, as much as it means freedom, cannot at the same time mean dishonesty.