@PanteraOnNoiseApp 4 August 2023 more from that month

I've concluded that software that scans written text for AI generation is often wrong. Especially in crypto where the terminology is standard, it can often lead to wrong conclusions. The text on the image is my work, which had nothing to do with AI as I didn't use any. I was surprised to find this result by Copyleaks, although other AI scanners pointed to 100% human content. I'm not sure if these sentences are entirely correct grammatically either. On one of them I use "would" twice, which I probably shouldn't. The only way to be sure is to compare an essay with the previous work of the same writer. A sudden increase in quality will definitely suggest the utilization of AI. However, more questions emerge from this. Pure AI-generated content is clearly a copy-paste. A scam if we can call it that, since someone is publishing content under their name, and claiming it contains personal thoughts and the interpretation of these thoughts, feelings, and knowledge. This is no different from plagiarism. What actually may be meaningful is enhancing written work with AI, to make content more readable. To transfer thoughts to paper when for example it would not be possible due to the lack of knowledge of the English language. The thoughts belong to the writer, although the expression in written form is enhanced via AI. Perhaps the latter is inevitable.