So, it occurred to me recently to create a thread with AI for fun taking advantage of the dip after ATH and this is the result:

Bitcoin Bloodbath: Is the Bubble Finally Bursting?

This is an example of acceptable AI usage on the forum IMO and one where you don't pass off what you created with AI as your own. Although as you can see from the thread hardly anyone has bothered to look that the source article was a ChatGPT creation.

If anyone finds the thread wrong I hope they compare it to others in that section such as pushups, the nearly 1000 page Buy the Dip and HODL, the Buy Buy Buy buy Sell Sell Sell and others.

Also, I am going to modify point 7 from the OP as it seems that at least in some cases content created by humans and translated with AI may appear as AI generated by the detectors, so to be on the safe side it is better to use online translators than AI, although I am sure that in the not too distant future they will be integrated.

There's no way in hell I'm going to switch from a reliable system I know, to some unknown code created by a language model.

Sometimes it's good to ask AI to handle simple tasks in programming, but don't fully rely on it because that can cause more problems than it solves. I use it myself sometimes, like for generating complex MySQL queries, but there's no way I would just copy and paste the code without understanding it first.

I have mixed feelings with vibe coding. I tried it a couple of times and it just makes my code more messy and unusable in the long term. It also hallucinates a lot, so I spend a lot of time fixing stuff that doesn't even work/exist. It works for small things that don't require too much thinking (that's why I like the AI autocomplete features, but not the agents).

I'm coding 99% of the new beta.ninjastic.space by hand.

One of the forum admins even set up a discord server for forum members but a few years down the road, there is barely any activity there with just a few members texting once in a while, yet this is a generation where people tend to prefer instant messaging apps

That tells you one of two things about the audience in this forum, and a shoutbox/chatbox/trollbox? I don't think it's necessary, in my opinion.

I appreciate the effort, but came to the conclusion (years ago) that I don't really want to spend more time on "looks". My site loyce.club was never meant to be used on it's own, it was simply a place to dump data that I couldn't fit in a post. And it kinda got out of hand, with currently ~15 million HTML pages. If I'd ever change things, it should be by converting everything to a database system to make it much easier to change things, but since I still know nothing about databases, that's not going to happen any time soon.
So much to do, so little time....

I don't know. I don't think it makes much sense, as recent bans are continuously published in modlog anyway.

Thank you. It is nice getting impartial feedback as opposed to the constant trolling that typically happens here when you become successful. It can be hard to know who is full of it and who is telling the truth. I think for those of us who are honest and do good, AI will continue to be a blessing.

yes, "but given that


It is logical to think that it could be a steganography puzzle, so all the small details should be considered.

[...]

So the main question that remains unanswered is why the funding was kept up for so long.

Thinking of the two "voter" criteria...
Somebody PMed me pointing out an example of someone included in DT1 only because they were trusted by a permabanned member. I was aware that permabanned members were allowed to be voters, but I thought it'd be too rare to matter. But now I'm leaning toward excluding them.

Also, I've increasingly been feeling that something should be done about inactive voters. Currently, a user can be inactive for years, but still contribute toward those two criteria. The specific way I'm leaning toward addressing this is to require that voters must have received merit from at least 2 distinct users in the last 3 years.

I did a pretend reshuffle, and compared to the 136 users who were eligible for DT1 last time, with the above 2 changes, these users were no longer eligible: bavicrypto, be.open, Best_Change, comit, digicoinuser, ekiller, ezeminer, finaleshot2016, Gunthar, Harkorede, Heisenberg_Hunter, hybridsole, joniboini, Koal-84, Lachrymose, mandown, and witcher_sense. (Some of these users may have become ineligible for reasons other than the above two changes; I just compared the output today after the changes to the output on Feb 1.)

If instead it was "voters must have received merit from at least 3 distinct users in the last 3 years", then these users would also become ineligible: Baofeng, MinoRaiola, and Russlenat. I'm leaning toward 2, mainly just on the principle of preferring a larger list generally.

What do people think of these two changes?

Spending an outrageous sum of donated funds on an unknown company when everyone said it was a bad idea and would not work.  I don't see it as a violation of being the Admin here, but it's... a bit tacky, I guess.  I suppose an analogy would be like spending taxpayer money on DEI initiatives that nobody wanted, asked for, or thought would result in a positive outcome. 

 - Not asking the community (or Donators) how we wanted our funds spent was unprofessional.
 - Spending money on an unknown company always has some amount of risk.
 - Now we have to spend time on this drama.

The insane amount of BTC that was wasted is unimportant, and I'd feel exactly the same if the wasted amount was 100x more or 100x less.  If I'd been holding the BTC, no BTC would've been wasted at all, and in fact it would have grown from airdrops as I respect the responsibility that comes with fiduciary duty.