09-22-2024, 09:19 PMTheGreatToeJam Wrote: I'm not entirely sure where the lines of communication got so crossed here but there has definitely been a bit of a breakdown. We reached out to Booth directly and pretty clearly explained our stance and most importantly - we gave them an opportunity to appeal our decision. Where the idea that we didn't speak to Booth came from, I don't know, but that isn't at all what happened. Ask HO for the receipts.

The media team, as it stands now, are doing our best to make a level playing field for all users. AI has been an incredible obstacle that, unfortunately, doesn't have a solution right now. We are learning as we go and we will absolutely make mistakes, we are only human after all. Before this blew up we had already reached out to HO about the volume of AI content and asked for help as to how best to combat it.

We know that the software for AI detection sucks. No, we don't just run articles through a detection software and call it a day. No, I don't take any joy in trying to decipher if an article was AI assisted. I want to give users as much money as possible, not take it away. There is literally no good way to approach the subject, we're going to piss people off no matter what.

If anyone has a fool proof AI detection method please let me know. Better yet, take my job because I didn't sign up for this.

You did not reach out to him until he noticed it was invalidated over a month later. In Mike’s message you guys “offer an appeal” while in the same breath say that you’re content with your decision after looking into it. What would a further appeal to your team have even done here? Anyone with eyes can see the article was not AI generated